All right. So, let's open this thing up. 9 December 2025 in the middle of a snowstorm. Let's start with the pledge of allegiance, please. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible and justice for all. All right. Can everybody on uh on teams hear us? >> We can hear you. >> Okay. Everybody's giving us a >> We're good. >> Thank you. Uh we'll start with the roll call. Miss Johnson, please. >> Uh Mayor Hib >> here. >> Council member Glazer >> here. >> Council member Brian >> here. >> Council member Rainville >> here. Council member >> here. >> Lieutenant Banger >> here. >> Myself Natalie Johnson. Then we have financial consultant Jagger >> here. [clears throat] Engineer Nelson >> here. >> Attorney Rupy >> here. >> Deputy Hawks >> here. >> Uh that completes. >> Okay, let's go [snorts] to uh anything on the agenda. >> Mr. Mayor, may we have a couple things for consent, please? This was uh items B, F, and G. >> Please. F and G. Okay. Any other uh things that need to be removed from consent or agenda items? Okay. Hearing none, let's move to vote. All those in favor of agenda approval say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. >> Okay. So, our next step is uh public forum. I'm looking in the audience tonight and I don't see anybody for the public forum tonight. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're going to take care of that right now. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So, let me open the public forum. Open the public forum. There's nobody that would like to speak tonight. So, we will close the public for All right. So, we're going to shift right into that. So, Matt, would you come up here, please? >> I don't know. You're going to have to tell me how to pronounce your last name. >> Huffs. >> Huffs. Well, come on up here and stand right here, sir, and I'll walk around the front. >> I have been told that you are going to rotate out of the city of Ned. Uh, that's correct. >> All right. So, we want to give you a certificate of appreciation. >> Thank you. Just thank you for what you've done for us. >> Thank you. >> And where are you going to go? >> I will be in Hamlet next year. >> We're going to miss you. >> Well, hope they'll be back eventually. Time will tell. So, thank you. >> Thanks for [applause] now. You do not have to shut the whole meeting tonight. So, just be aware. >> This is not a punishment. >> But if you want to take a break from them roads, they're not very nice out there tonight. >> Yeah. Uh they're quite interesting, that's for sure. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, uh we are going to move on to uh number three, which is the public hearing on budget and property taxes. Um is this Lori? Did you start this off or who's starting this one out? >> Yep, I can start this off, Mr. Mayor. So, uh Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, uh this evening, uh the council is going to adopt a final levy and budget and submit this to the county before December 28th. And in order to do that, we're going to discuss the the budget, uh the 26 budget and the 26 proposed levy. And we're going to ask the public, we're going to open a public hearing and ask the public to make comments um about that budget and levy. Um we did hold the council did hold four meetings in July, August, and November to discuss and plan for the 26 budget. Um since since our November meeting, we had some positive results with our our debt issue. And so we were able to reduce the levy by $8,645. So the truth and taxation notices that went out will be slightly higher than what the actual levy increase will be. So what I need you to do then is to view the presentation and then open the public hearing for for comments, close the hearing and adopt a final levy and budget. So if we're ready, then I will share my screen and and Oops. do the presentation. Oops. >> Oh, and then I closed the presentation. All right. I was all set up and then I closed it by mistake. Oh, let's see. Here we go. I got to go back to share. Nope, that's not what I want to share. Let's try this again. There we go. Okay. So you can see the the first page here everybody. Okay, great. So tonight is all about our 26 levy and budget. The city council uh adopted a preliminary levy on on September 9th and tonight we will hopefully adopt a final levy unless we decide to do a continuation hearing which is also possible. So and we'd have to do that before December um 28th. Um we the the city council directed staff to bring the necessary levy changes. Right now the uh well initially the the preliminary levy was 2,341432 um dollars and since then like I I mentioned earlier we've reduced that levy and the new levy is now 2 million $332,787. And it's broken down, as you can see, between the general fund operating levy and the debt service levy. That's where uh the increases are reflected. So the the general fund levy went up by $17,515 and the debt levy went up by $185,906. And so this year the city council is utilizing some fund balance in order to um to not have to increase the levy by additional dollars. And we do the city does have additional fund balance or excess fund balance available as a result of um pre prior years savings and um excess revenues that were that were um earned. And so we're transferring, you can see the transfers here, quite a bit of money out of the general fund into equipment, turnout gear, and debt service. And then we're also doing a weather siren purchase and installation. Um we have $10,000 of contingency. We have some public works training for um $9,350 for certificates that they are going to be getting. And then we have um 24,570 in operating expenses that we will be using fund balance to um pay for those expenses. And below is the changes in the uh revenue budget. You can see there that the tax levy went up 17. We had the largest change you can see as in fund balance use. It went up by $334,465 from the prior year. Um, we are transferring in um other funds from the building capital fund to help pay for um I believe it's the planning and um ordinance um operations for the city. It's the what is it? The >> the 2050 comprehensive plan. >> Yes, that's at the comprehensive plan. Thank you. [laughter] And here's our changes in our our expenditure budget. Um again, the transfers out to other funds went up substantially. And where else you you had increases were in maintenance. Um of course, the the weather siren, the sheriff contract went up by 37,000. We're increasing our legal budget by 20,000 and planning and zoning is going up by 10. And you can see the decreases there are in engineering, materials and supplies and salary and benefits went down um 78,545 over the previous year's budget as a result of a reorganization that the city did in in 2025. So, the levy impacts the these are things that impact your levy. Um, and and a lot of them you don't have a lot of control over. Um, especially that the only one that you really have control over is the city levy. The the um the property values change on a on an annual basis. The fiscal disparities distribution changes, the the contribution changes. Um, and all of this results in a slight increase in your uh, city tax rate going from 22.3% to 23.7. And here is the picture of the the total levy. Again, it's 2,332787. Um, and it's 200, 300 23,421 higher than last year. Um, residential properties may see an increase between 10.3 and 11. I know this is slightly higher than I had put on my um projection, but I checked with the county and the um the the rate the the market values went up more than I anticipated. So, they went up about 3.7%. I had it in there at 1.8, so that was a big difference. Um but the new tax rate, a homeowner will pay about $100 extra annually. Their their total taxes will be about $1,73 in taxes, which which is um eight it's a it's $8.35 um 35 a month increase over what they're paying right now. And here's what what you get for $89. you get, you know, police and fire, street maintenance, park maintenance, um, planning, street improvements, equipment, capital improvements, administration of city activities, and debts, debt to retirement. And this graph uh, reflects what has been going on over the last 10 years. You could the red line is actually the tax rate, which is the percentage is on the left hand side of the graph. So, it was um back in 2017, you can see there it was about 26% and then it it dove down quite a bit into 2023 and now we're going back up into 26, but it's still not at this the high rate that it was back in 2020 2017. Tax capacity on the other hand is the green bar graph and it's related to the dollars over on the right hand side and you can see the tax capacity that's the value of the properties in the city of now then and they continue to grow over the years. Um and then the the third line is the the brown line with the yellow dots and that's your total levy and that's related to the dollar signs on the right hand side also. And so the levy has gone from about a million and a half to now about 2 point that's 2.3 million. And then briefly we'll talk about the other funds. Recycling center. Um it's great news. We we got an additional money from Anoka County for our recycling in in 2026. Um, and so there's only a projected use of fund balance of about $2,000 for 2026, which is wonderful news for that that fund. Um, the gambling uh special revenue fund, we're still transferring $50,000 to the general fund to pay for um increases of the public safety expenditures. um that because we went from only a part-time to uh basically almost uh what is it 12 hours a day that you get for your sheriff I think now or is it more than that >> I think I think it is um and then our debt service fund we had a levy increase of 185,000 the total debt service in 26 is 439,177 and this is about 18% of your total levy is for debt service. And we usually issue bonds um for street improvements and then also we've issued bonds for equipment purchases. And here's a a a graph of your how your debt levy has changed um compared to your total levy as a percentage. And it has grown um over the years to a higher number or higher percentage. In Park Capital, we're looking to uh improve the uh memorial park improvements, finish that up in 26. And then also looking at the nine-hole disc trails for improving that money comes right out of the park capital fund. And then we have turnout gear. And this year the uh chief asked for additional funding for normally we only transfer 15,000 in there but he wanted 25,000 because he has additional needs for um turnout gear for new firefighters. And then the building fund I mentioned a little earlier, we're transferring $30,000 back to the general fund to pay for the the 2040 compre or 2050 comprehensive plan and additional code enforcement in 2026. Under our road improvement fund, um we are budgeting 100,000 for street maintenance, 50,000 for calcium chloride, four 560,000 for street improvements, and 24,1745 for a county project that we will pay for over three-year period. It's $24,000 a year for the county project. in our equipment replacement. We just at um issued some debt and we purchased a fire truck this year or we we have it on order. And um and we're also replacing a tool cat, 2009 toolkit. Replacing a box on a 2007 Sterling dump truck um which will extend the life. Uh and we're we're replacing a network computer. So, and we'll keep the old one for backup. And here's a view of um similar cities or townships with populations that are under $5,000 in Anoka County and 5,000 people. And you can see there the um tax capacity values are on the top and then the rates are on the bottom. and and now then is sitting very good at a approximately 24% rate compared to the other places that have the same population and that's it for the presentation. Any questions? >> Any questions for Miss Mr. Mayor? >> Council member, go ahead. >> Um the debt levy as a percent of total levy I mean what is the significance of those numbers? Obviously, you know, eight going up probably isn't what we want to see, but what is typical for a city of our size? >> Um, you know, I don't know what is typical, but as long as you are within the legal limit of uh your issuance, you're fine. And I know that the city of now then is within that legal limit. It's a I think it's 1 or 2% of your total market value. Um, and and you're definitely within that legal limit. We would always look at that before issuing any debt. Um, and you just don't want it to be too high because it it it then your your residents are paying more for a debt levy or or debt than they are for operations of it of the city. So I think you're good at 18 18% and you will have debt will fall off in a couple of years and so you'll be able to issue more debt for future road improvements and equipment. >> So are you referring to Pink 17 with that graph? >> Yeah, >> excuse me. Pink 17 on the graph is just showing that we're uh close to 18%. Miss Jagger, if you project forward one year, would you see that stay flat at 18% or is that looking to go? Which way are you projecting that that's going to go? >> It might go up um in 2027, but then you have debt that falls off in 2029. So, it stays about, you know, flat because you do have your debt is only 10 years. It's a short-term debt. And so your debt falls off pretty quick, you know, as far as once you issue it, it's, you know, 10 years later it's off. And so we're not issuing debt every year. We're issuing debt every other year. And so it falls off pretty quick. It'll stay probably around the 18% is what what I'm trying to say. >> Any other questions for Miss Mr. Mayor? I think my question is actually for Miss Johnson. At our last meeting, we we had some conversations about public works training and this would be on page six of Miss Jagger's um presentation is in the packet and we had that at our last meeting it wasn't determined exactly what the cost of that training was going to be. >> Um and now we see that it's $9,350. Can you break that out for us as far as what's embedded in there? uh the types of training and >> I can we took um an estimate. We found a couple of [clears throat] different training schools that we can go to as far as having as we discussed last um at the last meeting have someone come in and do the certification for the skid steer. We have grading school that they can go to. We have again some additional plowing school. They have to do some salting school. Um so I'm working on stuff. We haven't got them all set up, but those are the four that we've been trying to get in for 2026. >> So that 9350 for those four schools for the >> It depends upon how many they need to go to the one class just for the three or three or four is $1,100 on its own >> per per person. >> No, >> for the whole >> for the state. >> Yep. They'll come and do that for three or four people. So, do the four trainings add up to the 9350? I think that's >> actually some of the leadership ones we looked at that would mean we'd be under budget or over budget if we signed them up for it. There are some leadership courses that we could send them to. Um, >> organizational one. >> Yeah, I sent you some information about manufacturers alliance. >> Yeah. And they the classes can range from, you know, one day to three or four days and they can range anywhere from $900 a person up to $3,000 a person. So it just depends upon which one we feel are the best. >> So Mr. Mayor, I just want to unless I missed something at the last meeting, there was now there's some new things that we're paying for that we didn't talk about previously. You know, I I know that we had talked about some uh leadership training for um our our clerk, but I wasn't aware that we were uh doing leadership training for our public works in business. Do you have any There's nothing in here right now. The 9354 public works leadership train. >> No, we're still it's open. It's just we put some money in there as a placeholder for education for our employees and we just haven't determined which are the best. The one I had sent to you was more on organizational wasn't on leadership. >> Correct. >> It was 5S related and continuous improvement. That's >> it's so inside of our public that's answer your questions. >> Mr. Mayor, question for Miss Johnson. Um, did you ever hear back from our liability or work compensators whether safety training will have a positive effect on their opinions? >> It won't hurt us is what I was told. >> But, you know, as far as the cert certifications, [clears throat] if there's ever an accident, they want to see those. >> Any other questions on what Miss Jagger presented? So before we move into um even doing a motion on this, we have to open a public hearing for this. >> That's correct. Yes. >> So am I good to do that right now? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. So let's open the public hearing. Um public hearing is open for resolution. It's open for the final le and budget for 2026. Anybody in the audience want to speak up? Looks like it's pretty uh pretty open in the audience. >> Any questions? All right, let's close the public hearing. So, public hearing is closed. >> Mr. Mayor, >> council member Rainbow, >> I would move a resolution adopted budget for the year 2026. >> Second for discussion. Do you like discussion? Sure. I I just want to lead off and and this is going to be uh similar to u thoughts that I've shared in previous budget meetings that we have. Um I I think there are uh I'm hoping that the the residents and taxpayers and now then are going to be paying attention to this um this year and the coming years. Um, I I'm not um optimist I'm not in favor of this tax levy because of some of the spending that that the city council is doing choosing to do this year and I just wanted residents to be aware of that. >> Is there anything specific you would like to address? >> Um I you know I one of the things in particular I think we could have done better on the rescue truck. I think I think we're spending more than we needed to. Um, I I am disappointed in the the fact that we're paying 33% more for a weather siren that um not that we don't need another weather siren, but the the sighting of that weather siren as well is is in question. Um, and uh so >> just this is just from budgeting. So we'll send it out for a vote. If there's more people that can vote it, we get it less than that. And then the other thing is the location is not I know they provide a recommendation we're ultimately going to vote on location. >> Okay. >> So those are those are two of the two of the big items for me. So especially the the rescue the half a million dollar res. >> Okay. Any other discussion on this? >> Mr. Mayor C. >> It's just challenging and I don't know for something that I know we need to look at next year that this was I think one of the first times that I can remember that we actually got back together after the September hearing to discuss the budget and it was just challenging that in my opinion that we came up with all these things that we didn't include when we were talking about the original budgeting in the first place. So, it seemed like there was a lot of extra things and that just means that we're um tapping into a lot more fun than we talked about in June. And that's that's the challenge with for for uh next year's budget that I just think that there needs to be a better way that we need to have more we need to come up with a better way to plan for 2027 so that we we have less gotchas and unexpected expenses that just kind of pop up out of nowhere. So, >> I concur your statement. So I think just for myself not going through a I'll say a public um budgeting season I've done in the private sector many times and you're very very careful about what is for seen and we talked to even Miss Johnson about this put a whiteboard in our office anything that comes up that's not in our budget you include it to make sure we incorporate our lessons learned but I do agree there's multiple things that come up um and I think we have to be cost conscious as we go into next year to make sure we don't over so how do we do that well we need to be careful with what we do. Just [laughter] because it's budget doesn't mean it has to has to be spent. Obviously, we have to take care of um of our student. I think we have to be careful with that because it's going to be a balance to not hold the budget, >> right? But but however, just because it's in the budget, that means it gets included in in in the amount that we're charging back to our taxpayers. So, and and so and that doesn't change now until maybe possibly an adjustment in 27, but from what's been projected, that doesn't appear to be the case. Yes, there's a tax reset. Okay, that's some tech that conclude. >> Anything else? >> Okay, we definitely have some challenges on the horizon. There's no doubt. Hopefully with good teamwork and good council guidance, we can get through this. So, any other discussion? All right. So, let's move to vote uh for the resolution adoption of the budget for the year 2026. All those in favor say I. I >> oppose. Nay. Okay, motion carries. >> Mr. Mayor, council, >> make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. >> Second. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council, you also have to adopt the the levy resolution. >> Is that [clears throat] another page? >> It's on the back side. >> Oh, it's on the back side. Page 23. >> Sorry, [laughter] >> Council Rainbow. I uh I move that we approve the resolution adopting the levy for the year 2025 bill in 2026. >> Correct. >> That's correct. >> Second discussion on this one. >> Okay. Move to vote. So votes for a resolution adopting the levy for year 2025 2026. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Mr. Mayor to approve the consent agenda as amended. >> So which is B, F, and G for council religious request. We got a second. Anything else for discussion? Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Consent agenda is complete with the amended version. All right. Moving on to engineering. Mr. Nelson. >> Uh, good evening, mayor and council. Uh I believe this first item is uh just for the city council's information. These are our 202026 uh billing rates uh as uh inflation uh and other factors impact our business. We adjust our rates annually. Uh so those are in front of you tonight for your consideration. >> Mr. Mayor, please Mr. Nelson, just just for a point of reference for myself and and because I wasn't I didn't participate in this this extensively last year. I I observed meetings um and for the residents, could you just give us an idea of what the overall percentage increase for um your services will be to the city? Can you are you able to do to quantify that? uh there's a chance that the overall percentage may actually decrease uh in 2026. I think that's very likely uh if the deregulation petition uh is approved. Uh but my our hourly rates, it's roughly a 5% increase. >> You're welcome. Do >> you have to approve that? It's got on the agenda, too. Doesn't make sense for me. All right. So, are you also Mr. Nelson going to talk about the overlay project feasibility? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, yes, I am. >> Can you say yes? >> Yes. >> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, I can. Just I got a little conflict of noise here. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Mayor and Council. Uh so uh this year or for 2026, the city is proposing an overlay uh in five different neighborhoods or five different project areas. Um the first project area being uh Iman Street, 22nd Avenue, Boss Street, and 22nd Circle. The second project area being 229th Avenue, Argon Street, Waco. The third project area being 215th Avenue and Waco Street. The fourth project area being 224th Court. And then the fifth project area being 218th Avenue. Uh so all these roads are approximately uh 20 years old. uh they are showing normal uh degradation and we're proposing a batuminous overlay to extend the the service life of the pavement. Um I'm just going to go ahead. Let's see. I'm going to share my screen for a second. So again, these project areas are depicted in the feasibility report. Uh the roads to be improved are highlighted in green and then each property that's proposed to receive an assessment or identified as potentially receiving an assessment uh has a benefiting property number on it. Uh I just wanted to point out uh on this figure, property number 21 is actually located in the city of St. Francis. Uh we do not have the ability to assess properties outside of the city limits. Uh and uh one thing I wanted to note on this is this is 2 229th Avenue is not a traditional border road where it's half in uh the city of St. Francis and half in the the city of Nen. It's actually entirely within uh the city of Nen. So you see that yellow line, the plat line, that's the municipal border. Uh so therefore 229th Avenue is entirely with within the city of N then uh however there is one driveway access uh for property number 21 that that is a city of St. Francis property. So I just wanted to point that out and we'll we'll talk about that uh shortly. >> Can I just ask you a quick question on that? Does the driveway come on to 229th or does it does it go into Where's the driveway at for that property? >> Yeah, the driveway does come on to 229th. Boy, it's really tough to see uh at this scale, but it it it comes in on 229th. >> So, that's when we would work with this the neighboring city. Is that like a normal practice to work with the neighborhood and city to assess property taxes? >> Yeah. So, so what what I would propose for this property is just that uh they pay their fair share. So, the assessment works out to be $3,560 per parcel. And since they since there's just one property that assesses it, that's what we would propose to the city of St. Francis. uh then it'd really be up to them whether or not they would like to assess their resident or whether or not they will just choose to um you know pay it just out of their road and bridge uh funds. Um if if there was you know because of the amount it's only $3,000 I don't know if it makes sense for the city of St. Francis to go through all the the hearings just to assess one parcel. >> Okay. So, we're just going to work with our neighboring community. That's what >> my suggestion would just be to request uh that they pay an amount equal to one assessment amount. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> And then just scrolling through, this is the the Waco Street and 215th Avenue project area. Uh this is actually the only uh road uh in this year's project that has curbon gutter. Uh but it's there we're still proposing an overlay for that road. Uh then 224th court and then I believe lastly this is 218th Avenue and 218th Avenue. Uh my understanding is a culprit was replaced uh this year. Uh so there's some uh currently the the road is kind of backfilled with gravel. Uh so there would be a batuminous patch there that would be done kind of as as part of the project um in order to get the road ready for the overlay. Uh just walking through the existing conditions and the proposed improvements. I mean really these roads have been selected because they still are at a point where they're worth saving. Um in general uh the you know the the ditches or the curbon gutter systems are working fine. Uh there might be uh a small area of curbon gutter that we uh would be proposed to be replaced uh with the project just because you know before we do the overlay if there's any uh deficiencies or failed sections uh we want to correct those as part of the project. Moving on to the estimated cost sections on section 8. So similar to previous years, uh this report proposes that the city pays 100% of the uh the repair cost. So the patching cost or uh patching that curb and gutter. Uh this number that's in this report tonight is just a budgetary number. Uh and at this point, you know, this is uh this is kind of the the thousand foot look. Um and so don't don't be too concerned or don't pay too much attention to this budgetary number. If this project moves forward, we'll actually prepare plans and specs uh where we'll actually measure out uh the patching areas that uh need to occur prior to the overlay. Uh but the budgetary number to be paid 100% by the city is estimated atund 128,000 and part of that's due to that patch that we just discussed on 218th Avenue. >> Mr. Mayor, go ahead please. >> Um to Shane, I know that in the past the city has picked up the cost of doing these incidental items. Um, I'm just wondering if council would be interested in rolling those numbers into the entire project instead of taking that out of our street. >> You're talking 128,000. >> It would be half of that because we're going to pay half anyway. Um, because it's part of the project, but if I did my math right, um, it would be about would be less than $1,000 a parcel if we added that. >> So you would take half the 28,000 and add it in into the 462 >> and then because this patching is all going into the same areas >> Mr. So this would council member Rangle we're talking about increasing the individual assessments to each of the taxpayers by almost $1,000 >> if if my math is correct and depending on what these numbers come back >> thing is we don't have to make that decision so we can talk about it for >> it's just yeah just a conversation of do we want to leave that money in our street maintenance budget or or on how we do that. Just I want just a discussion for a later date. >> Jay, can I just ask a quick question? We [clears throat] have 560,000 for street improvements. Um, and you said don't hold you to these numbers, but right now you're including the 128,000, the 462. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, that's giving you generally about that number, >> right? Yeah. We're right now we're a little bit over uh but and that's why I kind of stress that don't uh uh you know the the o the the overlay improvements uh these are fairly straightforward because we can easily determine the quantities. They're really not subject to uh fieldwork. However, the patching quantities uh in here these are very dependent on field work which we have not done at this point in the at this stage in the uh project yet. Uh so these are just a placeholder just so the city doesn't lose track that there are going to be some patching cost uh and potentially some curb removal and replacement costs. >> That's some major patching costs at 75,000. All right. So thanks for the qualifying statement to state that we're not going to hold you cost at this point. That helps uh being able to keep breathing. All right. So is there any other questions for Mr. Nelson on this feasibility report. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Brent, >> if there are none, I make a motion to approve the uh resolution receiving the feasibility report and calling for a public hearing on said improvement. >> Second. >> Got lots of seconds. Any other discussion? All [clears throat] those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. So, thank you, Mr. Nelson. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And uh the public improvement hearing uh as identified in the resolution uh is scheduled for January 13th. So I will see you uh at January 13th for the public improvement hearing. >> Perfect. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, we're going to move on. Chief is not here. Uh we'll just touch base on uh the fire department real quick. Total calls for the month was 35 for fire. Um he's got a lot of different breakdowns. Um the rest of them I'm going to call more medical related. But uh overall another busy month with the 30 calls. Um the officer staff met and planned out the training schedule and goals for 2026. And then finally, they're working through processing of hiring three new firefighters and looking into interviewing several more who have expressed interest. So um things are moving along very nicely in the fire department. Is there any questions on that report? >> [clears throat] >> M Mr. Mayor, unless unless you can qualify as I just send the chief an email and ask something. [snorts] >> I certainly can't qualify. You do not have to. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. All right, sir. Sheriff's Department report monthly report. >> All right, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, the following is the sheriff's office report for the month of November 2025. Deputies responded to 134 calls for service. Of those calls, five were to bar none, five alarm calls, 28 medicals, and six animal calls. Diving into the bar none calls on the first, we responded for an assault report. One juvenile was arrested for assaulting another juvenile. They [snorts] were charged with threats of violence and assault and transported to the juvenile holding facility. On the third, uh we responded for a juvenile assaulting staff. That juvenile was charged with fifth degree assault and threats of violence as well and remained at the facility. On the fourth, we had kind of a big one at 12:45 in the morning. Um, pretty much all of our deputies responded for four juveniles there that were assaulting staff. They ended up overpowering the staff and stealing keys to the facility vehicle. Um, our deputies tried to stop that vehicle when it fled from the area. Uh, for a very brief time, they decided not to pursue given the safety with the juveniles and everything else. >> [snorts] >> Uh several other inker county agencies also tried to stop that vehicle uh but it continued to flee and ended up getting out of the county. Uh the juveniles were later arrested I believe it was the following day in Itasa County after another pursuit with law enforcement where they used spike strips to stop that vehicle and ended up taking all the juveniles into custody. All those juveniles were charged with an array of vehicle theft charges, simple robbery, riot, fleeing in a motor vehicle, and assault. On the 16th, deputies responded for a group of disorderly juveniles. Uh there were three juveniles that were charged with disorderly conduct on that one. They all remained at the facility. On the 24th, we responded for a juvenile runaway who was later located and returned. Moving on to other calls for service in the city on the 4th in the 8300 block of Viking. Deputies assisted a drug task force from another county in executing a search warrant. Uh during that warrant, two males were arrested on warrants and transported to jail. Uh the drugrelated charges stemming from that search uh of a warrant are referred to the drug task force in Na County. On the 25th in the 21100 block of St. Francis Boulevard. Deputy responded to the address for an abandoned vehicle. Uh through the investigation, the deputy determined that vehicle was stolen out of Woodbury and had been crashed there. Uh the vehicle was towed to Woodbury PD for them to process. We did not make any arrests on that recovery at this time. On the 29th at Viking and Bos Street, deputies responded for report of the vehicle in the ditch. That driver showed signs of impairment and failed field sobriety tests. She was arrested for DWI and booked into jail. Uh, one other note I have for you all obviously with Deputy Hus departing at the end of the year. We have Deputy Jesse Hogan. We'll be starting with you in January. He's new to our office um in the last he just completed field training a month or two ago, but he comes from an Ela PD and I think he was there for close to 15 years. So, he has a lot of good law enforcement experience in the county. So, it'll be a great add to the city. >> With that, I can stand for any questions. >> Mr. Mayor, >> oh, looks like we got more. Um, it seems like uh kids stealing cars from barnum is not an uncommon u occurrence. Could I mean could we encourage them or compel them to start locking those keys up? Maybe a lock box. >> Yeah. So, this is the third incident kind of of similar nature off the top of my head there. After the first incident, they have taken measures to keep this the vehicle keys secured in the locked office where the staff only have keys to get into the office. Now, I believe the second occasion where this happened, for some reason, the office didn't get locked. They were able to access the keys. This third one, they simply overpowered staff. So, they've taken some measures to try and secure the keys. I've had long talks with them about how dangerous this type of event can be for obvious reasons. And this one could have ended much worse. Luckily, there was no injuries to any law enforcement or the kids, but that could certainly easily happen. So, I'm having further talks with them. We're Natalie and I are involved with quarterly meetings with them and I reach out to them when we have these types of incidents to further discuss what more they could be doing to try and secure keys. >> That sounds good. Just seems like that's a very uh preventable occurrence with proper planning. >> I would agree. >> So I appreciate you telling them about that. Sounds like you're on council member as a question. Council Wade, Lieutenant Banger, um some of the statistics that I'm looking at for, you know, pertaining to Melbourne from 2024 to 2025, >> um assaults are up 48%. Felony arrests are up 500%. Misdemeanor arrests 71, traffic stops 42, traffic arrests 57%. And not that it's a competition with other cities, but how how are we doing compared to other jurisdictions within the county service department? >> Yeah. So, as far as the arrests, the majority of those can be attributed to Barnon. Um, I can't say with specity specificity exactly what percent, but we've taken a harder stance with them and kind of got their staff on board with instead of mentoring, coaching, trying to change behavior remaining at the facility, we're going to take more of approach of we're going to charge, we're going to arrest, we're going to get the kids into the justice system to hope that that will help change behavior faster than just the kinder, gentler approach that some facilities like to take. Um, as far as traffic stops, that's kind of a direct reflection of the deputies that are working the contract. Um, and I don't know necessarily how it compares to the other cities without looking. I can take a look at trends from the other cities. I really only get your stats each month. Uh, since I work outside of the patrol division and adjust services, I'm not in the stats quite as much as the patrol people, but I'll take a look at kind of the year-end trends for the other cities and bring you some of that at next month's meeting. So that the assaults that ties to the felony arrests and speed. >> Yes. Yeah. The majority of those felony arrests are going to be your riot charges, your robbery charges, your stolen vehicle charges that came from bar none. Okay. >> Uh there haven't any other felony arrests >> outside of the ordinary. All those I would always note a felony arrest in the monthly report. So it's mostly from bar none those increases. >> So not so much a public safety issue to residents in general. >> Yes. as long as we can keep them from getting in cars and >> yes >> fleeing the facility. >> I think you bring up a good point because if you look at the statistics you're like I ain't moving to now then >> but we've got one small entity that is probably 98% responsible for that and the rest of the city is very seems very very safe. >> Yeah, I'll I'll dig up the percentage exactly for what amount of our arrests of all the different categories were from from Barnon and where else they were from. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Council Rainbow. Um I would say the traffic stops if you look at the statistics during CO they hit the skids on so we're building back up after CO I don't know I and I don't have anything from the pre-COVID numbers um to look at but um a traffic is I I in the people I've talked to that have been stopped by by deputies here it's more anformational stop there are very few tickets issued and hopefully then that prevents that type ofh from occurring again. But what we are inching in inching up after >> Yeah. >> And Deputy Jacobson is a big fan of traffic enforcement. So that's kind of why I say it depends a lot on the deputy. Some deputies are less inclined to work as much traffic. Some deputies prefer to work drug cases where they're sitting watching drug houses, that type of thing. There's not a lot of drug houses, active drug houses in now then. Um but it's kind of a personal preference for what they like to do in their proactive time. So, >> we appreciate all you do for our city. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> We appreciate you keeping us safe. >> Drive safe. >> Yes. And drive safe. [laughter] >> All right, Miss Johnson. New business. You want to talk about the first one and your proposal? I think you've given us a sheet on this also. >> Yeah, it was also emailed out um [clears throat] after you and I had worked through it um in the past. In fact, all of the years that I've worked here, we've had to go back and do back things in either um March or April, and it does create quite a bit of work. So, it was my forethought hoping to get um any of the annual increases in force as of January 1st so that we do not have to do that back. So, I had gone through everything compared to their evaluations. I tried to take into comparison as to where they're at, how it had been done in the past and with the money that I had to try to make it work. So, that is the spreadsheet that I gave to you all. Nobody asked for any of the evaluations. Um, I will note that both Council Member Spencson and Brian did review um Lexi's uh evaluation and notes from some of our subcontractors. There really wasn't any feedback, >> any feedback from council members? >> No, I think it was fair and accurate and I think Lexi is doing a great job and this meeting reflected that. Is there any questions from from the council members on what she's proposing? >> So, you were looking for approval on this. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, yeah, on page 141, >> Mr. Chairman Rainbow, >> I would move that we approve the resolution um approving the recommended wage increases for 2026 for the staff of the city um provided by the city clerk and that they be effective January 1, 2026. >> I'll second. Any other discussion? Hearing none. Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, so that's 50% of yours. Then you get the next one. >> Thank you very much. Um, and actually I would like to remove this one. I did not get all the information that I was looking for and um, after discussion with the mayor, I would like to probably postpone this to 2027. >> Okay. So, more >> more uh, research and options provide and then take a look at. Correct. >> And we can talk about during budget season. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that takes care of that. Uh, we're on to number nine then. >> No, I'm missing one. >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Thank you. >> Yes. B. >> Yes. Consent B, F and G. Would you want to start that out, Mr. Glazer, once you find >> Yeah, I've got a I just I've got a couple questions on uh two claims. Um, there was a a claim for uh footwear for a part-time seasonal employee. Is that that we typically pay for >> um page >> 49 >> 30 I mean that's the start of the >> I can answer that as yes it is >> because safety is very important >> so we've always paid for parking yes sir >> thank you um the other the other question I have is it pertains to um uh part of the bill from Curry and Ruby and it that pertains specifically to the um meeting that uh was primarily held behind closed doors for residents. There's roughly 10 minutes of of um where that meeting was opened back up at the at the very end that involved a a personnel issue. Um the the cost to the city was almost $4,000, $3,910. How how many total hours did we need our attorney to uh help resolve that issue? >> Uh Mr. may or may not come and grab the planes coming or Bob maybe you'd like to address that >> right it's it's difficult to address that in public given the privacy issues at play here are I our invoices detailed and identifies every 15 minutes that we've spent on a a specific topic for the city uh I'd be happy to do address this with you private privately if you want to give me a call I'll have the invoice we can try to answer any questions on that you might have but I to to talk about specifics what we were doing given this employment matter in public would v potentially violate some privacy issues here under the data practices and open meeting >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'm just bringing it up because I was very surprised at the at at what it took to um financially for the city to resolve that. So, I just wanted to go >> It definitely wasn't like and I know there was a lot of primary things that went into that. So, that's the piece that I can speak of, but thank you Bob for the very professional comment on that. Um you can we can get you a copy of that when you >> I this is in my email. >> So, I do have this in my email and this is your copy? It's the one that I got assigned. But >> thank you. >> Did that take care of questions on B then at that point? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, we'll move to F. >> Planning and zoning annual. >> We need to approve these. >> Yes. >> At the end of three. >> Approved any of them. So, >> so, uh, Miss Johnson, if you could just if you could just help me and and I asked, um, Shane Nelson the same question. What is it, uh, on the increases in in cost of service, the the the service rates from um, for planning and zoning and our attorney services with it? What are we going from and to? We have the two amount, but what is the from amount? I can answer for Corey and Rupy if that helps. Our 2025 rates were $230 per hour for the general city work, $260 per hour for work that is we call development work, but it's the costs that are passed through to developers. And then the for 2026, we're proposing $240 for general city work and $270 for development work. >> Thank you. >> And collaborative planning is 133 going to 144. >> Thank you. That's it. >> Okay. So, any further discussion? Can we get a motion to approve B, F, and G? So moved. [clears throat] [laughter] >> A second. >> Okay. Is there any other discussion? >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. All right. Thank you for catching that. That was I was ready to go to number nine. >> So, Mr. Mayor, that was council member Brian. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I think you got a so move is what you got on that one. That that was a good one. I haven't seen that. >> Okay. So, >> thank you, sir. >> Drive safe. >> Um, at this point, we are going to close the meeting. >> So, I I real quick, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Jagger is going to log off. >> Hi. Thank [laughter] you. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. Could I have you read SE 9A into the record? >> Uh, read number nine. >> Number 9A, the closed session with the attorney. Please read that into the record. >> Yes. All right. So, we're going to um for 9A, we're going to close the session with the attorney pursuant with Minnesota statute section 13D.05.