All right, we'll open the meeting. Today's meeting is August 17th at 6 p.m. And we'll start with the pledge of allegiance, please. 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. >> Okay, thank you. Roll call tonight. Mayor H here. Council member Brian >> here. Council member Glazer here. Council member Rainville >> here. >> Council member Swinsson here. Uh and then we are going to go down to let's see planner um I'm sorry. >> City financial consultant Jagger >> here. >> All right. And it doesn't look like we have any staff present. >> Okay. Attendance is complete. Um >> the agenda. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Council member. >> Um I've just noticed that you did not have an open form on it. I think we have open. So should we add that to >> we should open for agenda? >> Yes, please. >> If you would like to make sure we sign up after go look through that. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. >> Y so then I move to approve agendas for presenters. >> Second. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Agenda is approved. All right. So, the first one was a memo from uh city clerk Johnson who's not here to present it, but they know that it was included in the packet. >> Mr. Mayor, do we want to take the time to go through just focus on the budget? >> You know what? Sorry. I think open public. He didn't have it. He didn't have anything. He didn't want to say anything. >> Okay. No public forum. We're good. >> Oh, I'm good. Thank you. Thank you all. >> Appreciate it. >> So, Councilman Brown, you what would you recommend? >> I'm just curious if in the interest of time that if unless there's a specific reason to go through the the memo from Natalie, if we can just jump to the >> budget, >> the actual budget. >> I think that's a perfect question to ask. Is there any questions or discussions on Mr. Mayor? Council Rambo, >> I would just like to ask have all council members read it yesterday. >> I read I read it twice maybe three times. >> I just want to show >> 12 pages of information. So there's a lot there. So we'll we'll reference back to that as we go through our process is what how I was thinking to use it. >> Does that meet everybody's intent? Are we good with uh number two then? Then we'll move on to number three which is the preliminary budget discussion the financial consulting. Okay. >> So we'll turn it over to you. >> Okay. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, uh included in in your packet of course is the memo that I prepared for this evening. Um just to summarize, uh we we had a meeting on August 3rd and as a result of those discussions, um we are now only using a small portion of fund balance with $2,000. uh of general fund reserves to pay for the now then festivals. Um what we discovered now by me is that there are some leftover revenues from um donations that we received from I believe Kexus and somebody else I can't think of. >> So are we talking Comcast and 199? >> Yeah, that's it. Yeah, that's a Comcast. What did I say? Okay. Yeah. So anyway, Comcast and so um that that those monies can be carried over and continue to be used for for future um festivals and and so we will just use uh $2,000 of our um fund balance where that's where Sydney to to pay for that festival in 2027. >> We're going to budget use it as a line. do it. We do budget for it, >> but because we have already got the revenues in, we have to use funds, but it's already received >> and then we can move it over in January to that specific >> No, it just stays in funds. We use it as, you know, we have it as a budget line item, but we're using fund balance to save fun. Thank you. >> Y So, the operating expenditure budgets, um, they're increasing by 3.2% 20% at $80,500. Um the original general fund levy proposal was reduced by $2,60. So the new proposed levy is $230,890. What that represents is that this year in 2026, um it looks like we're going to use about $98,000 of fund balance specifically for operating costs. The rest of the fund balance used was for debt service and for transfers out to um the fire unicorns. What had fire? >> Yes, that's it. Thank you. Up here, >> boy. >> Which isn't uniform. >> Yeah. And so, um, that's that's the 98,000 in addition to those transfers and the for debt service and the and the turnout here, we're using about 98,000 for operations and we have to make that up in 2027. So, that's part of that 230,000. Um, also the general fund expenditures are increasing by 80,000. So, that gets you up to 178,000 of that $230,000 increase. And you can see there that we also did a transfer from the building capital fund for $30,000 in 2026. We're not doing that in 2027. That was specifically to help pay for the um planning the code enforcement that we're doing in 2026 to help pay for that. >> Mr. Mayor, >> should we uh exit out of that screen? Is this showing up on your >> Oh, sorry. >> Yeah. >> And then we reduced our revenues by $29,000 and that's a a variety of things. Charges for >> service. Can you guys see properly now? >> Some fines and um interest earnings are are going down. We have less less money in the bank and uh the rates are slightly lower than they were last year. So that's basically what makes up that that len mode. So um again the the total budget adjustments since since August for the third meeting uh are $14,400 and our fund balance used also went down to $2,000. And then I have a list of expenditures that and there were questions regarding um you know what makes up some of the changes that that we're doing in in in 2027. Um the uh we reduced the paid medical leave expenditures slightly in all departments. I had budgeted that we were it was going to be an increase because I heard that they had no money left and so I assumed they're going to increase it and we heard they're not increasing it's going to stay at the8% and not go up. So I had to reduce it for the city also. Um and so the total for all departments was $2,300. So um for the mayor and council we we decided no no change in the pdium and that's how much that budget went down. Um, in administration, we moved night to unite to u another line item, reducing their line item or their budget by $2,500. Public works, we increased the fuel budget by 4,000, but we decreased the crack filling because they're doing the north side of town and it doesn't require as much crack. So, that went down by 10,000. Um and then we again I added the line item for the now then festivals and that's for the Heritage Fest and the unite unit. >> So we just moved existing line item that was already in the budget. Just put it somewhere. >> Yeah. To identify it separately. >> Well, it was already separated out. >> Well, it was under marketing. >> No, it wasn't. >> Yeah, >> I think it was called marketing. >> Yeah, it was called >> I will disagree. Yeah, we'll find it in the budget and give me a minute because we specifically had to line it in for like charity and festivals and not it was not marketing. There was another line. >> We have a contribution for charity. >> Okay, I'll find that. Let's get let's get customer because it's a great point because if there was a line item before for the festival the now the heritage festival we want to maintain that this was supposed to be an additional line item we called it 199 >> we budgeted $3,000 every year for the heritage fest specific >> that's a heritage line yeah >> so this marketing thing is something completely different >> for than just for the night >> so I don't know why we would be reducing them and then still trying to do two things. >> No, we're still the the 3,000 is still in that. >> I'll get to it when I get there because I see $2500 and that's not 199 money, >> right? That was the marketing budget for this >> council to council member >> Brian. So on page 30 um under general fund expenditures general government there is a relations to civic organizations >> and that's at >> that's the $3,000. >> So that's right. >> I think the 25 was more so >> just for the 19 >> for the 199 city. >> Can we change the GL code just so we know it's now the heritage festival? So there's no question about it because this is something that it's a again it's a nonprofit. We we like to support it as a city. >> Are we are we having one line item called now festivals that covers night and night as well as heritage fest? >> I would do two. I would separate them out so you know what >> Okay. Is it but we have a category called nin festivals. >> Do you want two line items for each thing? >> So Mr. there. Hold on, let me let me ask you. Um, that would probably be the easiest way. The whole goal is to distinguish the money. I agree with what you're saying. I don't want to reduce one. I want to make sure it's very clear in here on what we're spending the money on. So, then nobody has to come back to the question. So, probably the answer is yes, >> general fund expend. >> So, we have we do have donation to civic organizations. There's been a time in the past where we have donated to other organizations. So, I I would be under the The thought is that we would leave it as donation specific organizations. Then we have a separate fund for the night to unite for the city because that the festival is not a city function. The night to unite is so to have a fund for the night to unite which I think the 2500 was 2,000 2,000 and leave the three under donations. Um, >> can we put Heritage Festival on that in parenthesis? >> You you you you could. Yes. Um, >> that that would be my recommendation. Again, that is very clear. So, you're not trying to figure out. So, one thing about GE codes, they're great. They help us make sure we put in the right buckets, but if they're not labeled in a manner that we know what it is, then we come back and we have to debate it and try to figure it out. >> Okay. >> So, is that is that you or not? >> I can change it. >> Okay. If we would do that, please. >> Yeah. And then to go back and answer the question, we would have a separate category because it's a city run >> for 199. >> If everybody's happy with that, sounds like it makes sense. >> Yeah. >> On that subject, it's >> going to take too long to come. Yeah. Perfect. >> So, while we're still on that subject, is there a line item that's going to be added for 1990? No, I have I haven't set it up as festivals. I'll just change it to >> there may not take notes yet. >> Okay, go ahead. >> I don't mean to cut off talking on this, but I wanted to jump in before this next session. Um, for the salary, I realized I made an error in the step charts with the front desk receptionist position receiving two step increases that first step in case uh any of you guys notice that as well. So, I offered an RCA to correct the steps. Um, >> last, >> well, it's on the last page, but it was the next sort of item in the the minimum, but the last page is where it's apparent. 51 the number one. >> So 13 and 51. Thank you. >> So M those numbers council member Johnson were those numbers what was used in the budget? >> That is what is being used in this budget here. The error came in the second step. So, the first step of $23 for the front desk receptionist is what I intended. >> Okay. >> But then the step to the next step is over an 8% um >> increase >> increase. And that was not intended. >> And so I my RCA for tomorrow's meeting is to adjust it down so that the next step is only 4.2% like the rest of the steps. >> Okay. Um >> I'll adjust it and then would have to be adjusted in uh page 13 also but >> it's more adjusting more I will adjust it so um that will decrease the levy again any adjustments that you don't do now um have the potential to either decrease the levy or increase the transfers out. Right now the transfers out are only 5,000 to the equipment fund and 10,000 to the um fire turn off here currently for 2027. Um and then so speaking that the uh the uh public uh the next item was the request requested information for salary changes versus benefit changes and I did them by department. Um you can see the information there. I also did it um by position so you can see the changes. That's probably where you caught it when it showed 11% or whatever it was. I was like, "What?" So, it's about an 8.4% increase uh in salaries and about a 4.4% increase in benefits. >> Um for the less benefit 4.4 8 4.4 in benefits and 8.4 in salaries, but the benefits are lower because we had an individual that's not taking insurance. So, less cost. Yes. >> Excuse me there, >> right? You see in in park salaries going up 23.8%. >> Right. >> Is is that because of a third part-time employee this summer >> over in the summertime or is that because of allocation of hours? >> Y just adjusting their allocation. So you can see the their salary in public works only went up 1.9%. Well, but that isn't isn't that a little misleading from the standpoint if we just use the what would that percent increase be if we just use the um uh >> take out take off the take out the the hourly rate for the retired person and just factor in the three current employees. What's that in what is the increase from 2025 uh 2026 to 2027 for those three employees? the most employees >> because right now you're just comparing it to the budget, >> right? I'm just Yeah. >> And I'm just comparing it to the budget and so the the the um item that I sent out that shows the wages, >> it could be on that last page, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So if you just take three public works maintenance lines But that still doesn't get you to what council is asking. He's asking where where they at or projected to be at for this year. Not comparing to budget, >> right? But comparing to >> I guess you could compare it to budget but you're asking for what is the actual >> actual actual for the employees that we have >> because that wouldn't get you there. That would get you a a number of in theory if no overtime is working. >> That's right. >> So I think it's an action you can bring back for the next one >> to make sure your question gets answered before we go budget. >> Thank you. So I want actual >> three public works employees actuals are >> complet if we only hire two it would just be the two we just now trying something different this year and having more flexibility um hiring the three seasonal in the park >> he's talking he's talking to full-time employees there >> oh I I apologize I thought you had the three seasonals. >> No, but you you did hear me ask about >> if it was strictly because of the three season, >> but I think that's also a piece that could be a part of it. I don't know. But so we would actually need the seasonal piece broken down also to understand did that work well for us or do we want to go back to two? >> So >> it's the actual would you take the actual for the three but also can we put three archimers in there also? Okay. >> See, so we can understand the effect of that >> because it's really a two-part question to get where you want to get this. >> Council Rand and and if we're fortunate enough to get say three back, they have a year year experience. There may be less time that the full-time public works employees have to supplement in the >> park. Who knows what that would be, but that's a possibility. >> Okay. town. So, moving moving on uh then to the life expectancy. There was a question regarding park equipment. Did not get anything back yet from staff and I did look again. Um it according to Google standard commercial playground equipment can range from 35,000 to 85,000. We do have a placeholder in there. So, park and that comes out of the park dedication piece. So I think if we don't have the answer to that, I think it's still okay to come back on budget number three and talk about it because we don't have any public work. Go ahead. >> I was just going to make a suggestion because I know Ramsay did this. Ramsey literally contacted the county and said are you replacing any park equipment and they go yes and they just happen to be replacing Run River Central. So, literally Randy took if you any if you've ever been to the park in between Randy and Melan up at 47 where it was the old um metal slide and they used um old um cement um drain tile for kids to walk through. That was the playground equipment that was there up until like and they painted it to make it look like a snake. So, they ended up taking the stuff at Rum River and moving it family. So, I'm sure that would be I can't you know that would be great dramatically less expensive than buying new. >> So, it was donated from the county. Is that what you're saying? >> I I don't know if they bought it from the county or got it from the county, but I'm assuming the county would just be getting rid of it. >> I don't know. >> So, it could be simply do a request to the county and say, is there any playground equipment available that could be purchased or coming available? >> Right. And I'm guessing that would be way cheaper to get new. And I'm assuming Ramsay would not have gotten taken from the county if it was trashed. >> Okay, Mr. Um, can we ask Mr. Mor a question about that since he works for the county parks department? >> Oh, put me on the spot. Well, just um would you have a contact that may be able to get us information about that? >> Absolutely. I know a guy that runs that far. It's not It's not me, but I know who it is. >> Thank you. >> Just say it. >> Can you tell us right now who it is? >> Anders Orson. You want his number? >> What's his name? >> Anders Orson. He's our head, >> our maintenance superintendent. I've got his number here. >> Okay. Maybe we shouldn't do that online. >> Nice. It's a call phone. Are Are you ready for that? >> Yeah. >> 612 322 0968. >> It's Andrew Orson. He's our >> or that's no county parks maintenance superintendent. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Okay, so the current levy increase again is uh $230,890 or 9.9%. And this basically equals $7.60 per month for an average residential home which I have included. >> What is that cost of resial home? >> Yeah. >> Is that 490,000? Yeah. 488,000. >> So that was the question. Miss Jagger and I think I just answered my own question but so forgive me just seems but um on page well it's your page three on page 20 um it's there's a 12.19% increase in the overall uh overall property taxes. >> Yep. So >> it's because our debt service is not going out. >> But but we have a 9.9 we're stating actually only a 9.9%. >> So if you take your debt service levy plus your general fund levy, you add them together, then it's the change is only 9.9%. If you look particularly at the general fund, it's a 12% increase. When you look at the debt service levy, it's zero. So when you combine them together, what you do, they show up together on your TNT. It's 9.9% increase. They don't show up separately. They show up together. One thing I was going to mention that you could do is you could pull out the Upper Round River Wershed Management Organization and levy for that separately and that would show up as a special district. So you can pull that out of your levy and levby for it because you have to pay it, but it shows up on the TNT um statements as a special district or so it's not included in the city. >> It would just show a lesser levy increase for the city than 9.91,000 whatever that budget is 12,000 something. >> But it would be another ley. then and it still ends up >> I would rather include it and be transparent than try to separate it out and confuse anybody. >> That that's my point. So there's something it would be different if we actually actually if the wershed was an actual taxing district like is >> but since the watershed literally is here's our budget pay six cities here's your share and we've always done it that way >> right >> so for the lower one I I work for the lower one too >> they um they allow the cities to to levy you know they don't dictate to the city how to pay for they just say here's what you owe us and And so some cities levy for it. I know Anna does. I think even Ramsey does. I know city does not. They take it out of their storm water. >> No. Would there any be any interest in what Mr. described is separating it out interest from the council? >> Okay. >> I don't I don't think so. Is that just you end up getting the same result? >> You get the same result. I just I want to just make sure that I'm not talking forever. >> I just want to bring it up. I think it would be more confusing if they start >> doing another levy for city stock. Now we're now we're taxing for this too and >> so they're adding another tax for us. >> You could blame it on them. >> Please don't. >> No, you know >> because it's consider considering it it's not mandated by the wershed. It's mandated by the state. So it's not watered. Correct. Right. The watershed has done an amazing job over the last 20 years keeping the budget down and the only reason they been the budget's been up is because the state has mandated that they have to budget and do more things. So otherwise the budgeting has been amazingly low for the from the water. I >> think the next thing on here is August 24th. Is there on your calendar for the next budget? Yes, >> I'm just going to verify the bus. >> And so then I'm if I can move forward on page one, you can see there I book out the the the budget on the left side and the levy use on the right side. What I how I get to that levy use is I take out any grants and I take out any charges for services or legal fees that you're collecting and I get down to what is the levy actually paying for and that's what the levy is paying for over here on the right hand side by the so obviously well not obviously but it is the highest is the public works at 491,000 um the sheriff contract comes in at $480,000 that are represented by the levy and then the office administration comes in at 355. That's primarily because they don't actually get any direct grants. The fire department gets a direct grant from the so that reduces their levy use um because they're getting money from the state and and from to fund those activities. So any questions regarding levy use and you can see here that's where the bonds show that there's zero change in the levity. You can see how the levy is distributed between the bonds that were issued and uh there's no bond issue no levy for the 2027 yet issued the 27 bond. So there's no questions offer on page one. >> So we know the most expensive thing is public works followed by public safety which is a sheriff's contract and followed by city administration. >> Yeah driven. So when you look at public works and say 291 that's not just salaries there's a lot more built into that. Yeah, that's the patchwork and all the maintenance. >> Everything includes >> travel and all that stuff that you have to buy. >> So yeah, it's not everything >> includes a debt service on equipment for that particular part. >> Uh the debt service in 2019 was just for roads. 2021 it was for equipment. It could have been partially for uh public works and part fire. And then again in 25 it was for roads and also for um public works and and fire equipment. And then in 27 it'll also be for road improvements and for equipment. So >> can we look at parks from compared to the 26 budget to 27 it's increasing substantially. >> Yes. >> But I don't remember a reason for that to increase substantially. So, if you look at the 25 actual page on >> I'm still on page one. >> You still on page one? >> Still on page one and page one. Okay. >> Or your page one. >> My page one. I'm sorry. Sorry. >> Yeah. Uh, and I just went down to park area and so it looks like the 25 actual was 73,000 26 budget was 62 >> and that's low and that's too low. And so we're shifting budget I believe from uh some some of the park or the public works um money. >> Oh how they were allocating their time changation. >> It was time allocation. Okay. So that answers the question because they have been if they're working in parts they're allocating parts and we're not doing I want to say as consistent of a job >> or in 24 for that matter >> probably 24 >> 25 got better. >> Yep. >> And so that's why it went up at 25 but we budgeted not enough. >> Yeah. Not enough for 26. >> So and my assumption would be in that park area would also be like some of our parttime staff in the summer would be a statement. Yes. then it would make sense. So it wasn't allocated properly before. >> So M since you're bringing up parts and you've been talking we talked about you know the three season employees um you know broken out from the three full-time uh public works employees. >> I I would I'm very curious to see how how that worked out from financial standpoint and managing their time. Um For instance, we had two uh part-time uh seasonal employees in 2025. How did 2026 compare financially? >> So, I I've done a I've done a um projection and you can see that in detail. So, if you go down to >> Yep. Yep. and it was early. So, I don't know if my projection is going or not, but I'm projecting um $10,400 in part-time and there was 12,956 in 2025. I think that because you have three public works guys now, their time, they spend more time in the works and I think there's less time for the the public or for the part- timerrs. they might be spending um if so if we look at uh public works um looks like they're in in 2026 they're spending more time in public works than they did in 25 or 24 the part time I'm assuming the parts are the same guys they work in both public works and parks am I wrong I don't >> the part timers are really dedicated to the parks >> I can help support >> we have we have part employees especially in the winter time for snow for >> snow. Yeah. >> So your question that you asked earlier what was the impact for the three part timeline into that she'll bring that back include include groups as parts guys and your snowball guys that your snowball guys aren't working. I'm I'm just I'm just curious about how the how it whether it was beneficial financially or whether we spent significantly more money >> on the just on the seasonal employees in summer. So what whatever that is about the same, >> you know, June July dollars. >> So if you look at 2025 actual and you add it to the 2025 actual fors, it adds up to about $20,000. And if you take the 26 projected and you add it to the the 26 projected in parts, it's about $21,000. So it's not not a significant difference. >> Does anybody know when part time we struck off? >> I would say Mr. Mayor typically college students so she'll be soon. Yeah. Um but I know that when we approved the three seasonal um it was understood and and Natalie um designed it as such that she would not go over what our current budget was or seasonal. So um we've not heard that she did. So I am assuming that she was under the budget whether it be one seasonal or 10. >> She had so much to spend. >> We had heard that she was over. But we're projecting for them to go over. >> That's my projection. That's probably not now. You know, she would say more than go over. >> I didn't know that. >> We I mean we can at a later date once once these three employees go back go back to school or whatever they have. We can look at the actuals when they're >> Yes. >> Hopefully next Monday. >> Yeah. >> But they it's possible that usually this is last week. a lot of them already. >> So it's very possible we could come up with actual on that >> because we could also calculate actual hours work and do a comparison there too. So, Mr. Mayor, while we're talking about parks, did we pay for the fertilizer out of landscaping supplies for the last two years? >> Because we have this landscaping supplies budget that is was 7,800 last year and 4,500 this year, >> right? >> And then there was talk about doing fertilizer and is it just that the past we didn't have that we added a new line item for it but it but we did it so I'm just curious to where it came out of for the parks >> the numbers sound familiar but let me just state >> we talked about this the last question >> when uh >> when the guys were here >> remember we budget that's what I can remember the budget didn't get reduced from 24 to 25. >> I don't think there's anything that is right at >> I think but I think it was decided to do more applications. >> Yes. Okay. So the turf fertilizer was paid for out of parts out of landscaping >> supplies. Landscaping supplies. Yeah. >> And so it was uh herbicide fertilizer. Last year it was about $6,000. >> Last year 25 >> 25 >> 25. >> Okay. >> And this year what do we have budgeted for? I don't even know. >> 2000. I think we're they were going to outsource it. It's under professional services. >> Not for this year. >> Not for this year. No, but for for next year it is. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, I'm just trying to do some math where we budgeted $2,000 for landscaping supplies. >> That wasn't enough. >> I understand it wasn't enough. But in we're again we're only projecting to spend in between landscaping supplies we're only projecting to spend 4500. >> Well and that's like I say that's my projection based on what they have purchased so far. >> But I understand we just have this challenge every year and just trying to figure it out because we're trying to use >> more accurate numbers yet we have projections where we don't know necessarily what's coming in or going. So how do we >> Yes. But my point is, if we're projecting to spend, we budgeted for 2,000, we projecting to spend 4,500, yet next year we're budgeting for $8,500 for landscape supplies and fertilizing. That seems excessive. >> So the um the landscaping we budgeted only $2,000. Yeah. >> And next year we're budgeting five, >> right? and we're budgeting 3500 for >> I think they're just they're doing that much more work in the parks and they want to they want to do extra applications. Obviously my number is low because they bought they bought stuff last year. They didn't buy it until September. So I'm assuming they're going to buy some fertilizer and stuff in September to start in May process maybe. I don't know. It's, you know, I'm looking at last year's numbers and um >> that would talk without Natalie and spoke words and what what the plan is. >> So, the only way to to complete a projection is to meet with everybody and say, "All right, show me your plan for the rest of your year and what you're going to spend." That's got to be tied in. If we miss that step, >> projections are either way off or way. >> It's very difficult to project. >> But let's go back to your question because I think it's valid. What should we be looking at for 202? >> So, I don't see where >> Oh, it's going up so high. >> If we budgeted for 2,000 and this year >> and now we're going to 8,500, that's four times the amount. >> Sure. >> If we're using your projection, that's 4500. >> That's double >> and it's not double, but getting close at 8,500, right? And it seems like landscaping, if landscaping supplies are just supplies, I can't. It seems like we're not spending. If we probably look over history in 2024, we bought zero. >> That $5,000 amount is too high for landscaping supplies. >> Can we just go to your notes and bring this up? And so I need to have a conversation with Natalie and public works to find out >> what their what their plan is for the remainder of 26. >> Mhm. >> And what is the recommended amount because I would like to change the GL code on this too to say if you're going to put fertilizer, put fertilizer. So we got a clear GL code. Not landscape supplies. And there might be something they need, but let's figure out what that is. >> That' be a recommendation. >> Just we're budgeting a third more in 27 for parks. >> That seems like a lot. Mr. Mayor, >> you good? Customer. >> Yeah, I it is a big increase, but the the staff has also um given the parks more attention in maintenance and you know the the wood chips and all of the things that they do in the park. Signs, I don't sign. Well, signs are separate. >> Um but those um they've been giving the parts more attention and that's going to cost us more when we put in to replace the wood chips and rocks, whatever we're doing. >> We've also been replacing wood chips and rocks for a long time >> with and and not having to budget a third more over time. So, if there's something that we're going above and beyond, it's worth a discussion with council to go is this how far do we want to go? We don't need our parks to be um I'm not going to use that good good example, but I mean just from where things are at, do we Um, we've added in some things and if it's fertilizing and take care of the weeds a little more, but you know, we don't need the perfect expensive boulders lining the paths or whatever it is. It's just stupid example. >> Could we bring this back up next week? So, number one, handest public works people to represent. They would build the plan and then we can >> Yep. That's right. Okay. >> And then the same thing would be for signs. Do you need to spend eight times as much on signs at the parks? >> And Natalie would argue. Yes. >> It's my understanding that part of that is an RCA that we're looking at tomorrow um posting as far as parking and different things. So, she's fun. I haven't spent that in this year. But then again, the eight times the budget for next year seems a lot. >> Is that all just for plug for science? >> Yes. >> This is 8,000. Yeah. $4,000 budgeted for parks. >> Yeah. >> I think it's a good question. Without representation, it makes it difficult. I would definitely prefer not to have another budgeting meeting >> without representation from the city. >> Mr. here. >> So, are you moving that side? >> Yeah. Yeah. Council Randy. >> Well, I in Natalie's defense, she was here. Was going to be here when we originally scheduled the meeting. The fact that she's not here is not >> It's definitely not fault. It's not We rescheduled it. >> And again, we're trying to accommodate the council. So, so are we blaming someone for this? >> No. I'm just I I want people to understand that Natalie didn't just not show cuz that's what's >> No, but that's what I I'm just trying to get at because it's like >> it's a matter of well, yes, we requested that the meeting be rescheduled, but if we needed Natalie, then we could have said, "Nope, the 17th isn't going to work. Let's pick a different day." There's no accusation of fault. >> No, I wasn't trying to imply that. I was just saying we really need that representation. I agree with your statement, Council Brian. You're 100% right. If we can't get all of us, then we need to pick and if it's not working for somebody, then >> okay, we can't use that name unless picking the problem. >> All right. So, we're going to have more questions and answers is what it looks like, but we'll continue to progress through and not answer. >> She addressed it in her memo. >> That applies to repairs and maintenance as well. We're doubling the projected from this year to next. >> I think it's better that we just wait till the next meeting so we don't try to anything from from what was written. >> It says required replacement of speed limit signs. Okay. And it parks signs applies. We need signs. No parking between signs. No fishing between signs. Vehicle trailer parking only. Fishing gear parking only. Disc golf etc. Um, I tell you guys, I don't know. Even if you bought all those signs, I don't see a detail. >> So, that's the piece I think is missing. >> Okay. So, we we'll ask that question. We'll come back. Okay. So, I'm going to back up to the summary and just ask which departments do you want to is there look at closely? Is there something that you want me to address? I think we just open up to the council and just ask a question. Is there anything specifically the difference from 26 to 27 budget right now that is causing the concern? >> Now, we may not be able to get the answer tonight, but we can make sure it now our Monday next meeting and next meeting on Monday the 24th will probably have to be a little bit longer so we can get through all the pieces that are answered. So, and maybe we should look at other funds tonight. Recycling and things like that where they're not so they don't need staff. >> That was the goal. But let's ask these guys council. Good question. >> I just I would say we can discuss. >> Okay, >> good. So, it's a great plan. We'll discuss the things where we don't need family specific input and move forward. Um, so start with that. >> Yes. Mr. Mayor, go ahead. >> I ask a favor that if we're moving to a different page, can you just say the page number >> that people are looking for? >> That's what I'm trying to get. >> Say page number >> 39. Our page 39 is recycling revenue. page 39 and 40%. >> Um, so as I've said in the past, it's hard to look at recycling money because we are set the county gives us a certain amount. >> We get half of that in. So we get of the 26 grant, we get half of it in 26 and we get the other half in 27 as it goes through the end of the month. So when we're looking at revenues for the recycling center, we are looking at the last half of 25m. >> So let me interchange. >> Yeah. So I approved the revenues. >> Oh, all right. Okay. Okay. >> This is literally what you have for >> Okay. Because so there was expenditures of $76,845. the revenues when I added up revenues um with the grant um we also did an extra labor grant for labor and that's $15,972. So looking at the expenses that >> I'm on page 40 right now for 39 >> revenue 39. >> So what is not reflected in the $47,845 is an additional grant of $15,972. >> Thank you Mary. I I did correct that >> in in my detail budget though. So it is reflected and so when I look at um just the uh the cycling we're actually making a profit. >> Is it is that a guaranteed now that we could never guarantee the county has not sent it to us yet? So Dian is on it. >> Um that will be the same going forward. We are still continuing. The reason we're getting it is we track non now then residents whether they be within the county by city or another county by city. We provided year and a half two years worth of information to the county. They gave us this additional money. We are still tracking um the the clients based on where they live. If we go past that percentage, they will increase that 15972, right? >> And they are they are continuing to track. Gileia has those numbers. I'm not looked at them lately, but >> she said she's at 37% now. >> So, okay. And I think they base it on like 32. So, for 27, we put >> might Yes. >> Do we need to continue justifying that 15? Like if we drop below, whatever. >> Yes. If if we were to drop below that, then they would cut that. >> So, we're definitely going to track >> But it does it does improve the budget tremendously. >> I mean, it so then it's reflected. 2026, you're you've got $16,000 profit. That's no longer red. It's flat. >> And then, um, so 2027 is projected to be an $8,800 profit. So we'll pass 64,000 in funding which is a huge change from previous years. I don't know has it been profitable at all in the past and keep a little bit and sometimes depending on if you got money more money you know >> and I said um it's difficult to to come up with a dollar because we only get the revenue for the for the materials when we send them off and so um if you send them off in December November December, we may not get a check for them from the haulers or the end users till the next year. So, it's it's hard it's not hard fast numbers as far as saying yes, we spent this and we got that because sometimes they're overlapping average. >> So, it could be profitable one year and be a $5,000 loss. >> You can see here on my spreadsheet it was uh you lost money in 21, you gain money and so forth. >> So, it's kind of like But then going forward >> as long as you get that >> and it's difficult in that we don't we don't um control what we're getting per item you know pricing things like that. So when we send off a roll off of newspapers we're lucky to get $35 a whole roll off of newspapers. Yeah. >> And so that's why staff has been um separating them out because we can get more money for the >> I think what they call it's not newspaper >> right >> well not even wet pack um anything that's not a cardboard. So like the cereal box that isn't >> that's called that's what they're >> is that even even if it doesn't have the wax on it I think so. >> Okay. So they're separating all of that. So that'll take a while to get to enough to bail it, but we're trying to do that to try to increase our revenues, but we are depends on what the markets are. >> So yeah, you scroll down the bottom that you're >> I have a message for council member. You're you're most knowledgeable about the recycling center. Um, so if if we're lucky to get $35 that is that net after hauling or is that >> No, no, we pay probably 180 to haul it. >> Okay. So if if we if we pay more to haul it than we get for it >> and residents like myself, I recycle all my paper products at my um single sort recycling bin. Why are why are we continuing to offer to to collect newspaper. >> Mr. Mayor, what >> we're obligated to to recycle certain things. Um, newspaper is one of them. Um, we can we look at the contract. Um, but we are obligated to do so many things. >> That's part of the work getting funds. And there are things that we like scrap metal. We don't charge for scrap metal. So anything that comes in from that we can use profits from that to cover some of the cost of the the newspapers tires you know just it just it's just part of recycling that's what I want >> maybe I can provide an example too I don't believe everybody has recycling also I think if you look years you're back now then probably very few people have recycling I think now more residents have recycling but still not everybody has it >> so by so I've been here many many times people will come in and they will bring plastic bags. They will bring cardboard. They will bring a selection of glass, aluminum, cans, steel, and it's like everything. So, I'm assuming they truly don't have recycling at all. And Mr. Mayor, >> and sadly, they pay for it under on their disposal, >> right? Leage or whoever, they have to charge each resident for solid waste and recycling. Um the county has just changed their their program. We're waiting to get that from the county. Um I know one of the things is they want um by 2030 to do organic recycling. Um fortunately they are um only mandating on them that on cities over 5,000 population. It'll be a while before we get that. But we would have to add a if all of a sudden we hit 5,000 next year, we would have to add organic recycling to our recycling center. >> Okay. >> And expenses to go with that. And you have to sad part about organic is they have to go through everything to make sure it's only organic. >> You know, I I don't know anybody that wants to do that. >> So, um we can hold that off for a while. Um >> hopefully a long enough. Yeah. >> Well, not really. >> That's Yeah. >> As of April 1st, 2025, now those population is 4813. >> Yeah. >> Based on the Met Council population estimate >> from bank. So may I have a question about the recycling center budget and whoever whichever the two of you would like to answer this this additional grant money that we're going to get is this does this eliminate the need to burn through our fund balance that is limited >> yes >> in fact now you have have some availability to do some small capital improvements Well, they talked about getting a fan or something, but it was really expensive. I know. >> Well, and if I may elaborate on that, we went from talking about the possibility of a U LVL, which is a lowline fan uh over there, but because the expense, we said that they wouldn't do any capital improvements. But there see I think in the and we'll have to ask because it's in the clerk's memo. Um there's talks about possibly doing some uh sectioning off putting in walls and going back to the conversation about doing you' have to do some space conditioning which is going to add to our utility bills in the in the recycling center. And in regards to utility bills I still have a concern. I I know that we're we're working on the uh the cost of utilities, but the our gas costs in at the at the recycling center went up 84.45% over the previous year, but the heated degree days only went up 2.945%. So, I think we need to do a better job of managing the set points and and setbacks in the uh in the recycling center because that's a that's a significant spike in uh the use of natural gas for considering we're open but uh 12 hours a week and every or two Saturdays a month 6 hours 13.5 a week >> it was a substantial amount you're correct >> 21,500 for the plans >> the other point just to bring up is so when I went in there just like you said the conditioning of is they don't have windows. They there's like work that needs to be done. So if we finally have a profitable spot, you can take some of that and reallocate back to say how do we make improvements in this that would benefit part of that is um yeah the gas price was crazy last year. Absolutely. >> Go ahead. >> Well, and and we can't control what they're charging us for gas. We can control how we use it and I think staff has been trying to do that. Um, but there's also say is in the summer we've had some extremely hot days. Had we had air conditioning, that electrical bill would went up would have gone up. In the winter, if it's freezing cold and we had a very bitter winter, that's going to increase the cost of of heating it on the days that were there. >> So, so I did explain that the heating degree days only went up that went up less than 3%. But the bill went up 85%. So, I'd be happy to look at the at the cost of gas year-over-year from um the 12 months for the two 12 month periods that I used, but based on a line >> I keep an eye on my gas bill at home and mine didn't go up dramatically due to the cost of gas. >> So 10 to 15% or something did go up, but it's not 84% 85%. >> Again, McN is working on some things to figure out what to do. Staff is looking >> I did ask him the questions. What do you what they said to eat at I want to say 50° when they're not there. >> So it's being heated the entire time >> to some level, but I think that there's lots of opportunity to make it better. So they may not have any insulation. No, >> they did do some insulating of that of that building. >> They did some insulation of the where the oil was >> the center section. >> Yeah, the center section. The rest of it is >> there's pink insulation on the walls in the >> where the is that area is >> all that's you say it's not just one >> are they all the same thermostat >> so there's two separate ones >> so maybe maybe that's part of it too is maybe you reduce the heat in the one area and you think that now is there anything that can't freeze over there maybe that's part of it also we look at >> that I don't know I don't know if I'm not a mechanical person so I don't know if the any oils in the bor any of the oil that's in the the oil would drop off >> I don't know enough about the hydraulics important I don't know >> is it electrochanic or hydraulic. >> Uh plastic bor is hydraulic for sure. >> You might be able to go down to 40°. >> So I think there's opportunity and then crank it up an hour or two before you can get there so it's not freezing to that. >> Yeah. >> All right. What else on recycling? Anything else, man? >> That's projected to be a profit. That's great news. We project it to be a better profit knowing that expenses have been going up from 55 to 65 to 64 to 70 to 70 projected proposed to be again $10,000 more $12,000 more than last year >> based on projections >> and and that is is employee costs um operating supplies I mean other than utilities there's other things that are needed to run That's that's seven and those costs go up because the rate the cost to get your home goes up. I mean I my gas and my electric in the last since last season went up $125 each month. >> So I also look at if they're you know cardboard expenses aren't there. So, we're budgeting almost what we got for last year, but we've only we're only projecting at $800. And scrap metal, we're budgeting $700 less than this year, but that but we're only collecting projecting a third of that. >> Are you talking revenues now or what are you talking about? >> Both. It's just a matter of expenses. I mean, obviously, if if revenues are higher, then the expenses are less of a burden, but I don't see necessarily where I mean, if you took the cardboard, I mean, the cardboard seems like it would even if you took out maybe at 2,000 instead of 2,800, that's closer to seems more realistic. And the um scrap metal looks to be more like um you know, even if you made it a thousand, that's now you're at $1,600 less of actual revenue that is being >> only is only being offset by an increase of expenses. >> So if I look back over not just um this previous year, if I look back, you know, five years to 2021, the cardboard was uh an average of $2,800 a year >> over 100. >> Yep. Over five years. And then the scrap metal, if I look at five years, the average is 3,700 for scrap. So, I don't know how to, you know, how to project number one, and then how to budget because it can change so dramatically um every year. >> In those areas, >> appliances are the same way. I mean, appliances are they average 3,400 or $3,500 over five years. >> Go ahead, Council. This is the timing, >> right? Yeah. So, um, scrap metal we've taken hit on. We're not getting from alter yet. I have to contact them to make sure the weight slips are correct and everything like that, but they're just telling us that the the commodity dollars are not there. Um, cardboard I know they're separating out to try to give us additional monies with the other type of materials. Um, appliances we don't have um a cost for it because he doesn't charge us to pick up appliances. Um, he just he charges us he doesn't charge anything for appliances. So what we get for appliances is just revenue. Um the recycling hauling has actually gone down over the years as far as the cost. You know in 2021 it was almost $25,000 for hauling and then in 2025 it's only 11,200 >> cost. Sorry, do we historically track um what we have hauled by week on an annual basis? >> Yes. So every month, every six months from January to to June and July to August, we report to the county what our total tonnage is. So I mean it it's additional it's additional information that we that has to be provided to the council. Would it wouldn't it be beneficial to the council so that we could see that okay is it just the fact that that the commod the value of the commodity is going down or we're actually getting less of it or we might be getting more like >> right and the value is down >> and the value is down just you know just so >> for for discussion so we can see how how we're doing from an operating standpoint as far as you know how efficiently it's >> so mater Go ahead. >> Um, that information is available in order to do a comparison year by year. Staff would have to go through each item each month and and track it on an Excel spreadsheet. Right now, it's all in the retract system, which is the system the county uses. And twice a year, we report our cleavages. And they're broken down by different things. Some are um hazardous, some are the tires, other ones are the appliances and electronics. They have to break them down, but we don't have that in a a comparison year over year. >> Does the county give us that information? >> It is in the It is in the DRA system and we can print it out. >> Okay. So maybe there's some reporting that just even from there. >> So I'd like to make one statement on this and so we look at this. This is always going to be a difficult one to project. You could forecast and say I can do a 5-year average of where we've been, >> but you could do a weighted average the last two years to put them at a higher weight and do the average to see if it could get closer. >> Sure. >> Because what you can't do or we don't know and there's changing of prices um by volume. You have all these things at the end of the day. As long as we can budget a certain amount and we're going to get enough revenue to cover that, we should be okay. Now, we've got a I mean, if you look up there, we're positive this year, which is fantastic. So, we've changed our hours. We've changed a lot of things. >> Um, we're doing fall recycling days, spring recycling. So, it's it's going to continue to change. So, you can do all the reports you want, but I think just a fiveyear projection, do a higher weight than the last two years. So, if you double the weight and then call it a seven-year average and double it down and say this is what I paid. So, that might help us a little more than just doing the five year. That would be my recommendation, >> Mr. If we get fans or air conditioners or different thermostats, then if we have even more of a surplus, then there's the money to pay for it because that doesn't necessarily >> then we're using the actual recycling funds to pay for it and not grants versus having to come up with the money somewhere else because yeah, our recycling budget expenses have increased about 50% since 24. >> The expenses Yeah. from 2024 actual at 55,000 to propose 276,000. Just quick quick in my head math that's 50%. Okay. >> 20,000. >> So over a threeear span. >> Yeah. >> $20,000. >> What is the professional service that jumps from 415 and 24 to 6,000 >> 25? >> This one. >> Mhm. That is >> that's from the auditors. >> Auditors and attorneys. >> Yeah. >> Attorney needs to look at the contract um every year >> the share of the audit cost. We can actually expense part of the audit cost. >> That's how we do that. Can >> we go back to council B's question because it's 24 to 27 threeear difference almost $21,000. Mhm. >> So 10,000 and and the increase in in 25 from 24 to 25 is already 10,000 and that was primarily wages. >> More time was being spent there. So in 2025 it was 38,000. In 2024 it was 31. So it was $7,000 more in wages. Um, in the proposed the wages are now 46,000. >> 46 compared back to 24 >> uh 31,00 and we're open America. I think the thing that has to be addressed is the amount that wages have gone up relative to the hours that we're open. We're open fewer hours than we were employ. So we're staff number two people compared to I think that was a big >> change you complete or not >> and I don't believe that we should go back to not staffing it to people. Um I think it's a safety issue for the employees. Um they're using equipment. Um there are some people that come in that are not nice people. >> And so I think for our employee safety that we need to say it to. Um if if council chooses to to close the center because they're not happy with the dollars, that's a decision council can make. But as I said before, um there are possible ramifications um of closing the center and that we would have to pay back the county. Um the assets occurred in the polar or in part with funds provided under this agreement, it shall be the property of the municipality so long as set assets are used by the municipality for the purpose of land program. So if we're not offering that, but don't act it. I don't know what that dollar amount would be. >> I don't know that anybody's recommending to close it. I don't I don't think that's the case. I think it's just discussion about >> that's part of the if if we're spending too much money and you're it's costing too much. That's one of the downfalls that I I I've not talked to anybody that's Well, there's one old crabby guy that comes in um and he wouldn't be happy with whatever. Um, but I was at the grocery show on Sat on Friday and sitting on the on the wagon going around and talking to people and people really like that recycling center. When when you are paying the count paying your hauler to take your stuff away and you still bring it to the recycling center, there's a reason you're doing it. You like going there. Um, it is busy. It's um it's than it's ever been. I mean, that's the one of the big compliments I get on how nice that we sink in the center. >> Um, there were comments about it's really cold in the winter and it's really hot in the summer. You know, we tried for a grant to get air conditioning, the county wouldn't do it. >> Um, so I think those types of expenditures are going to be on our to those um unless we can figure out a way to say that's going to increase recycling. I don't know how you could do that, but um it's a benefit that is that has bed in now then to the to the residents. They like it. Um and um I think there'll be a lot on campers if we close it. >> If you look at revenue compared to expense, you're plus. >> Yeah. >> So to me, if you didn't change anything at all, you're still plus. >> That's good. your your fund balance has gone grown from 23,400 to $65,000 in 2027. So good situation that's because of those two additional being $306 and >> other discussion the shelter recycling center then and what's next on top >> uh debt >> what page would be up >> that starts on my page 24, your page 41. >> Yes. >> So the very next page. >> Yes. So this is where the other levy comes in. The levy is for the debt service. Of course, um you also did special assessments that help pay for the debt service. So you can see here 719 is for the the 2019 improvement bonds and then uh 2021A is 36,000 736. >> Where where do you see that? >> I'm talking the lean on the top. So >> there you go. >> Yeah, that's the le and then the special assessments are another line items. And of course down here is what your bond principle and interest is. has been very fortunate as all cities have when they've been issuing that it's been really good rates. This is going to be the first year when we don't we don't >> we won't get a good rate in 27. I'm projecting it'll be a higher rate than we've had in the past >> because interest rates have gone up. >> Yes. >> I'm just looking at the T- bonds and mortgage rates. They're not that they used to be. >> No, they're not. >> So, I'm trying to remember Mr. What did we when we bonded earlier this year? >> 25. So what was that? >> I believe that rate was bonded for >> 4.09 or something like that. >> Are you hearing any projections for next year? >> I was guessing that it's going to be at least five. I don't know. >> You know, you have very good ratings. So that helps a lot >> cuz last time we predicted it was going to be at 5.25 >> and then came down. Yeah. >> 4.09. It was awesome. >> It was awesome. >> So hopefully it's better than I >> projected. Council Ryan, I agree with you. It's trending in the wrong direction. >> Unfortunate. >> Yes. So that's about it for debt. It's that another 130,000 for 2025. Um, and then of course we're going to issue debt in 2027 and we will I I always project that get about 20% of your special assessments prepaid. So you'll have money available to pay the debt service on in 2028. So you won't have to let that. So now we're move on to park. There's quite a few. That would be page 42 park improvements. >> 45. Thank you. >> And we do have a nice list there. Um, we don't know, you know, we have funding available in the you can see there if you do all of these projects, you'll be down to about $25,000 in 2027 in your parkation. But all of these projects do qualify um for parkation use. >> Is the large improvement the 2027 is that from roads? That's between like parking and drive. >> So that was not resurfacing but ceiling and the entire thing. I thought that was projected at 100. >> I have it at 100. >> Am I missing 120? >> Oh, that's so the detail shows you that it's 100,000 on the Twin Lakes and then it's probably uh fishing pier improvements and nine hole. >> That's Thank you. That's for the 120. >> Yeah. Y does does anybody here know Why $30,000 for the doors on the bathrooms? Is there something wrong with the doors that are there? >> Yes. >> It was in the statement. >> Yeah. >> The cost seems like crazy. >> Yeah. >> Think that's a question we need to bring back and ask for estimates. >> Um, memorial park restroom and concession doors. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Her per7. >> Yeah. Page seven. Memorial Park restaurant and concession doors. One estimate was $28,378. Men's doors do not shut completely without pulling it to be locked. Women's bathroom doors rusting bottom. Center supply doors the worst. The doors in the and the doors in the in the concession are original, rusted, and not secure. According to public works, um Twin Lakes bathroom, um the women and men's restroom doors are worse than Memorial Park. They're not used they're not secure screws are stripped in the hinges going into the concrete. Um beneicial improvement, but not immediately required. Public works would like prefer these two doors to be placed before memorial for security. >> So for using parks Why can't we just keep it to me like we need to break this out instead of one estimate for everything? What's it going to take to do the two doors here? Two doors at twin legs and the concession door is a separate thing cuz if it it seems to me there's some some urgency in doing this though, why can't we? It's park fun. We should be able to do it now. >> Can Yeah. Yeah. >> We don't have to wait till next year. I guess park fun, but it's not really levied anyway. >> You can do it right now. Yeah. >> And she's waiting on an estimate for the for the twin parks, the doors. But yeah, you can definitely do it this year. You don't have to wait. >> Even and even if it's Yeah, if we don't do the concession. I mean, we've been using it all this time here. The concession door. >> I think the concession, excuse me. Um, >> it's saying it's rusting and not secure. Well, there's a refrigerator in there and a sink. >> The doors into the concession area are original and rust. I'm talking concession. >> They're not secure. >> The doors >> the the door in >> the door two doors into the concession. >> Two regular doors, one on each side. And then the rest of >> it. So you get the best bang for the bottom. >> That one comes back up on the 24th. So doors at Ulmorial. >> Yeah, all of them. >> Is it here? >> Yes, it's both. Is that door? We We just use it session. >> That's what I was getting trying to figure out. >> That certain wasn't rusted through by any. >> I wasn't paying very close attention, but it's didn't seem >> But like one time I I locked it and then they're like, "Well, we have to get back in there." But the key work. >> So they may have some rust on them. >> So I think it's important to get the suspect. >> I didn't look at them as needing to be replaced. If if if repairs replace needs to take place, there's no reason we couldn't do it now. >> I 100% support. >> That's all the only points. >> Everybody got that one clear. They need to be fixed. Let's get them fixed. >> I would like some fix. Holy smokes. $30,000. >> And Mr. That's my advice. >> And I remember Nana saying she's trying been trying to get estimates and businesses are elected to do it because they felt. >> So I mean I know she's trying >> I can literally help with this one. She can't get a bail and somebody else get >> I can probably get two hits. We got some >> I mean she's been working on it. Is there any other park projects that you want to discuss or delay or see now or for next year but it's big improvements. So can I ask in the building and structures we talked about the roofs? >> Yep. The doors on the bathrooms are part of the building and structures and the pavilion roof replacements and the security doors. security for the doors. >> That's what's been there. >> Are we going to get a fairly large infusion of fund balance for parks because of some of the developments that are coming online? >> Yeah, if you if you have developments >> when and so when do those payments have to be made? >> Mr. Joy, please. uh they have to be made they the art dedication fees have to be paid before anything before everything's close sign so that they can start their work. So the the balance for 2026 um or the revenue for 2026 is is projected at $65,000 and that's the states the other the one off of 47 where we split lots. Um, so those funds are before they can turn brown, we've got our money >> and that dollar amount is determined by state statute. We can't um lower it. State statute determines what that is. >> Oh yeah, I was I was asking to to change the amount just >> when do we get that confusion, right? Because we're >> I mean the ending fund balance for 2027 is shy short of 26,000. And I'm projecting that you'll only have um basically five development slots, five lots developed in 2007. I just don't know if you've got something on that. >> I don't think it depends on how that process, >> Mr. Mayor. I know we mentioned the the fact that it's state dictated because I've had people complain that we have to pay the dollar amount that they have to pay the dollar amount at least they do and it's a state mandate so we can't we don't control it's they need to go to their legislators if they don't think that's statewide >> anything else on parks Do we maybe do we have bids for this other stuff? >> Um I can say that this is a budget. So I assume she at least has one bid, but before any work is done, we had three bids. >> No. Well, I'm just Yeah, I'm just curious because >> the doors are the ones that pull me away at $30,000. >> Right. Well, I'm just going Okay, that look at the big ones. the the roof in theory would be bids and I'm sure there's several people in town who would be interested in bidding on it. I'm just again trying to get a more accurate >> I think I think she said she had at least one for the >> so that one will be an easier one but is the one I don't know that she has an estimate I don't know she put in there that you have an estimate >> she has 28,000 for >> right yeah right I didn't see anything about the roofs or um other quote receiver between 15 and 20 >> yeah was there just jumping out but that's twin The next Oh, for each this that must be for each roof. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the height is not 34. It's 40. >> And Mr. Mayor, >> the um Memorial Park restroom and concession doors, that's for five years. If we were to replace all five, that's what that would be. And again, I I don't know how much a commercial door is. We don't have some real damage. Um, but I just know that's for and I know that staff over the year has been patching the bottoms of doors and then just keep putting the little paint on. Um, I'm sorry that makes us more important than me. going to close all parts and talk about uh going for fun. >> Nope. We're going to talk about turnup here. Did >> I miss that one? >> That's right. Below parts. >> It is. >> Yeah. And so annually, you're going to transfer in 20 playground equipment. >> What page are you on? >> That same page. Yeah. On the bottom page. >> Bottom. Okay. So, after the detail, they want to turn up. Yep. So, planning on um I believe it's three. They're quite expensive now that 2027. >> Is this green? >> And is this three firefighters or >> replacing >> or is it we that's what I'm trying to get at. Are we actually replacing because I know that there's an expiration date on it that they have to be replaced after 10 years. >> He's trying to replace so many here. So, >> how does the fun balance end up negative? >> Um, >> it cost more than we put in, >> right? >> Yeah. My math is probably off there. >> No, it's not. >> I have to look at that. >> I just think 10 seems a little shy for putting money in as those costs are going up. And what if here's the kicker has always been if something happens and all it takes is what? Two to get destroyed and now we're >> host. No pun intended. >> How did you get for 10,000? >> Did you say you get >> Well, >> what happens if the fire department is successful in hiring the number of people they want to hire? That's why >> well and that's why they're this year they have $25,000 budgeted because then they can they are able to buy more they're going to buy five this year and so and then in 2027 I have them buy two >> 10,000 doesn't get you 24,000 get you five we can do some back math >> but it's the prices go up so I I go up every year prices go up >> right okay 24 gets you five Just under five a piece. >> 45 gets you two. You get your lucky >> $5,40 a piece in 10,000 get you two. Not even three. >> Yeah. So I think he's trying to replace two at time. That's what I've had in here. And then at 30 I've got three going out. >> Can we have Can you put it on your notes and ask chief? I'm sure he's already done the math, but looking at because he's trying to reuse the old equipment and the new ones coming in as long as they can fit it. That was the big question. >> And it's not expired yet. >> Can't be expired either. Yes, it's got to be functional here and it's got to fit properly. And if it doesn't fit properly, then they would end up probably new set. But can you just throw that in the notes so we can verify with Chief that two new sets of turnout given the recruitment that we're trying to do? Is that enough? Well, he had asked for more money, but it requires a transfer from the general fund, and I I said, "Well, you don't have the money." So, what did you ask? >> You asked for 25,000. So, there's there's your answer. That's what we have to see every year. Can't do that. You have to increase that year or use fund balance. >> Well, we just decreased our fund balances by 13 grand between last year and this year, didn't you? Uh yeah, >> yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> But then we're going to use more fund balance. >> Yes, you are. >> So our fund balance, we've already spent 23 thou 23% of our fund balance for the last couple years. >> Yeah, your fund balance is kind of 40%. >> Yeah, we holding the 40 is in the middle. All right. So, going back to to your statement, if you looked and said, "All right, if we cut all 13 here, can we use it? Chief would like 25, but what if what if we moved it to 15 and consume some of that what we cut?" >> I mean, it it just changes your unbalanced >> as long as that's not all 40%. >> Right. I think it's another discussion because again I'm just going to bring it up again. was proposed is higher than 26 but by 1500 looking at general supplies but 5,000 more 4,000 more than projected >> under I'm sorry on page 32 under the fire fire budget under general supplies we budgeted 125 we're projecting 98 and we're increasing the budget almost by half for projected based for 27 >> and that's a question for >> No, I don't understand. I'm just bringing it up. I mean, I'm betting we could get another turnout year out of here. >> Oh, yeah. I agree. >> But let's put that in the question back to Natalie and back to Chief so we can get that answer. That's exactly >> I mean equipment is being doubled what we're projecting for small tools and minor equipment. >> So currently we're budgeting 10,000. The question is is there enough in chief's budget that he can get another set or two out of it? That's one. >> Okay. >> And the other question is back to the council then is do we move it to 15 so we can help the guy get the turnover he needs. >> Okay. >> But we need to know we can't go over I'm going to say take under 40%. for a general fund, >> right? >> Can we get away with 40,000 the same training budget? That's 10,000 right there >> from uh 26 to 27, >> right? It's a question. It's a question for the chief, but I'm just >> He wants more training. I know he does. >> It's reimbured. We also >> It's 80% reimbured. Yes, pretty much. It is reimbured. So that's that's a good item. >> It's budget, but it comes back into the general fund or does it come back into the fire? >> It comes into the general fund, >> right? >> You know, but it is from training. >> So if you look, I just totally just take this training and multiply it times whatever. So like take that number and times 80%. That's what the revenue is. >> Assuming all the training is >> 50,000 gets done. >> Yeah. assume assuming all of it is eligible for >> for reimbursement >> but and now so that was a question that we asked last meeting and I don't know that there was >> 80 I believe it was like an 80% was the reimbursement rate um and if we're going to hire more firefighters um there's going to be more training and um I think that we need to pro provide training for our firefighters. Um we ask them to do some hero heroic heroic work and um they need the tools and training and do that. >> And I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying when you're increasing the budget, if we're trying to find ways to look out turnout for to get to turnout gear, we it might be worth taking a finer tooth through throughout the entire budget to come up with extra money to buy turnout gear. So, we're not having to use fun balance and it's taken care of. >> Yeah. I don't recall what line this was under, but didn't the chief mention needing to buy some sort of one time purchases to stock one of the trucks? Yes. >> Is that under the general? Yeah, that's in the general fund. >> I mean, is that like general supplies gems from what it does to what it is? >> Probably here. >> I mean, we're all just guessing. We're going to chief. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Address it maybe next Monday. >> So, turn your will show until the 24th. What's the next one? >> Building capital. I hear the chief did get some estimates and so I was able to now reduce the bond proceeds for the well. Um, we did that. saving a little bit of money on your future debt buddy. So, um, he came in with $320,000 rather than 375. >> Is that one? Well, >> yes. >> Here. >> Yeah. >> Even after the study that was done that said you can't get away with one well, >> I have no idea. >> Right. I'm just it up again for discussion. >> I think from a budgeting standpoint, you said there was one well. >> Um can you can you expand on what you you have information? >> I remember there's the the talk of the original proposal for a well here that we couldn't sustain it with just having one well. So there was talk of digging actually like four or five separate wells and then having a holding tank in the middle for the actual water because because of the water table or I don't remember all the specific details but it was a matter of that what would work around here >> I know he's going to bring it to you guys >> yeah will bring it up but what what how he explained to me is is it's one we have to get a deep >> and if that's going deeper then okay then >> it's high volume >> to get the high volume watering, right? So, it's one month whatever the where the original proposal was. The only way to get the high volume was we had to actually multiple. So, maybe there's another way to do it. >> It is. It's a deeper. So, I think that's probably the best. >> The 320 is much better than 365. >> Yeah, 375. Yeah. >> 375. So, in addition to the the well, there's um several little the air conditioning at city halls, security cameras, uh insulation at town hall and recycling and shop fans. >> So, Mr. In regards to the insulation at the town hall, instead of throwing a number of $10,000 cellless insulation that may get blown into the attic, I would we could still get a contractor. We can still get a contractor out here to take a peek up through the scuttle in the attic to tell us what the current R value is and what the cost would be to blow that insulation. $10,000 on the bottom for go back to notes and say please provide the estimate for HTH >> yeah actual >> for >> um was there I'm remembering a conversation that we when we're energy audits that they wouldn't come out and do the audit care until it's cold >> so that we would know what we're looking at and then we can do we can get actual estimates what needs to be done based on on your audit. Am I wrong on that? So the in in my professional experience, those two are separate items because what they're going to what they're going to come in and do is they're going to do a blower door test and use an infrared camera to look for bypasses where where warm air is escaping into the attic. Um, I personally would rather rely on a professional uh an insulation contractor to come up and look at the actual insulation because they're they're going to measure the depth, look at the type of material that's already out there, tell us what that R value is, this is what it's going to take to get to an R50 if we don't already have that. And and the thing that the energy auditor is going to tell us is any air that would be beneficial. I don't I don't recall seeing any issues with ice dams on this building. Um so but they will be able to determine you know if we have a little issue with that so that they can be treated as separate items. >> I just I just remember that conversation. >> Yeah. >> We had to wait till it was cold. Yeah, for for in the council, we've never touched any in installation in this building. Now, the when they put the um kitchen area and the restrooms on um that would have been more updated, but those went on. What do you think? adjusted whatever was >> cold at the time. >> Cold at the time. >> This building isn't super drafty though when you sit in it in the winter time and and when the windows were replaced the weight pockets in the from the old windows they were filled >> because otherwise you have frost on the casings. What do you think? Six or 7,000 question. >> I you know I haven't I've been out of the trades that trade for a while. So but instead of throwing a number at it, let's get a better idea of what we have to budget. Anything else for building? >> We're on page 47. I think that's the page on the right. >> Everybody except Miss Right. So 2027 um Hunter's Net and Milestone ponds are the the projects. These numbers are coming from Shane. Um we do have $120,000 in there for additional projects. Shane is recommending that we eventually get to a million dollars that you're going to spend on roads. And so this is getting we're creeping up there. getting to that that point of spending additional $100 and the calcium is still here and I up that $5,000. >> Yeah. Right. I was just thinking since we're not necessarily using calcium this year we're not using calcium. We want to make it specific. So it's not necessarily calcium. >> It's just a technicality but >> we're using something completely different. >> Yeah. Now we're using magnesium. >> Magnesium. So >> it's a chloride chloride >> dust stuff >> road chloride >> just >> if anybody looks at it go what? So there's no community. >> So the total line item is 520 and that includes road improvement and calcium chloride. >> Nope. The total line item the total expense is 755,000. You can see here some of that is for issuing the bonds cost about $44,000 to issue that debt. And then 120 is for the additional road repairs that Shane will probably come up with some some ideas for 27. Um 55 is for chloride and the 536 is a combination of of Hunter Meadow and the county project to make >> that we don't need one thing that I would like us to consider and we're having a discussion tomorrow about the salt >> that you know while some res if if let's say the project goes through some while some residents um may choose to pay their share instead of pay up front instead of >> um uh paying through and having interest on it. Do we need to take that into consideration and might still have that project in 2027? >> I think that'll be decided tomorrow, but I think it will to me it would make sense. It's recommended from the citizens. We know that we have to do a feasibility study, but I think it'll end up on here, but I think we have to wait for tomorrow's council meeting to decide that and then we'll pick it up in this. >> Okay. I'm not aware what's going on. a group of residents approached a group of residents that live on Salt Street approached the city >> um with and and it's a specific proposal because one of the one of the residents is a professional contractor. >> They would be doing the prep work on the river bed and and then contracting uh you know through a bidding process to to do the uh lay the asphalt. >> Okay. >> So Shane wasn't involved in it. He's involved in it now because because he's given a city estimate. >> Okay. >> Um for feasibility study for that stretch of road. >> Okay. >> And that's in tomorrow's uh meeting. >> Okay. >> So theoretically would that mean there'd be another line item for whatever you want to call it. Residents paying for the project >> that's under special assessments. >> Okay. So then >> you tell me that they're going to pay for all of it or are we going to bond Well, that's the discussion. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> I say that's the discussion. If not, >> we'll shut down until tomorrow by Monday. >> Yeah. >> And then but it can come out Monday. So if it's a go, it can be around here. >> And that changes if it's if it's permanent then that would change for 2027. 2028. >> It's not chang. No, it does not change. >> We got one more page and could we be done further back? >> Yeah. >> Equipment replacement. >> Yeah, equipment replacement. This is so ordered the double truck. It's got a purchase order agreement out there. And then so the other uh equipment is the zero turnover, fire mobile radios, fire portable radios, the SCBA air packs, and some security cameras. We know what area the security came for this city hall. >> Let's see here. >> Yes, >> we also have security cameras in the building. >> Right. I know. I saw that. >> Yeah. >> I mean, they're different amounts, >> right? >> Was 15 and one six. Is that what it was? I did see that. >> Yeah, that's a good question. Um, I don't see it on here. Here we go. >> You have security for doors and a park for 5,000. >> On page 46, the only security camera is 8,000. Yeah. >> It may be two different things, but we'll ask the question. >> Right. >> So, on page 46 it says 8,000. On page 48 says 6,000. >> Might be another set of 20 right there. No, I suppose you could take out >> just so any questions about what's different. >> Security cameras. Did you get that? >> Yeah. >> You guys good if we call today not security cameras and security camera system. >> Maybe that's the difference. came. >> Oh, the security. >> Security cameras was on 46 cameras. >> The system is coming out of the equipment. >> The system was going >> in here. >> No, I think it's to the city hall. >> Oh, the system is broken. >> We're not able to add any codes. >> Okay, that's what it is. >> Well, that's camera, not security system. >> Well, it's not a security camera system. It's just a security system. >> I think there's an extra word in there. >> Yep. I'll answer. We'll get clarification. >> Thank you.