Six o'clock. Everybody ready to start? >> All right. Good evening everybody. Today is 14th July at 6 o'clock and we're going to open our meeting. Oh, >> we have a little delay for an echo. as Natalie works on that. If you would all rise with me and join me in the pledge of allegiance, please to the flag of the United States for it stands. God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> My Miss Johnson uh does that. Oh, she's coming back. So, she gets to do a >> roll call. Mayor >> here. >> Member Glazer >> here. Council member Brian. Council member Rainville >> here. Council member Senson >> here. Fire Chief Miller >> here. >> And Natalie Johnson and Lori. Um Lori. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Can you turn on your mic so we can hear you? >> I have it on. >> Hear me? >> Seriously, you're just working. >> Are you on? >> I'm on. Yes. >> Can't hear you. We're working through some technical challenges. >> Hello. >> I can I can hear you. But can you hear me? I >> think we're I think so. >> You can hear? Okay. >> Yeah, we can hear. >> Okay, good. Okay. So, uh, first thing, roll call is completed. Code of conducts on the back wall. Uh, next thing we'll do is go, uh, discuss the agenda or approve the agenda. Customer Brian, go ahead. >> Make a motion to, um, approve the agenda as presented. >> Got a second from council member Rainville. Uh, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Agenda is approved. We'll go to the public forum. Doesn't appear we have anybody signed up today. Miss Johnson, I'm assuming nobody signed up. >> No, sir. >> Okay. So, public agenda is complete and we'll move on to the first one is the approval of the resolution 2025 approving the 3-day temporary liquor license. >> Mr. Council member Ryan >> motion to approve the resolution issuing a >> license from August 15th through >> second from council member Rainville. All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. Motion carries. All right. So, we'll move on to agenda item number four is discuss the the fire truck. And we have Chief Miller here to present. >> Mayor, council members, thank you for um having me here tonight to talk about some options that uh we had discussed before for the firetruck. Um before I I our last meeting I presented four different options for the for the for replacement of the rescue um and purchasing of a a new firet truck. Um, I met with my staff um, during the week last week prior to the after the council meeting, prior to this council meeting to find out from them um, if there was anything that I was missing, history, um, if there was um, missing in how we did things before we were a a fire department of our own. Um, what happened when we were partnered up with Ramsey. And so that brought up a lot of discussion items about um the vehicles that we currently have and and led to to my recommendation tonight. Um and so a little bit of background with that. Um we created our own fire department in 2021. Um we split off from Ramsey. Prior to that, if we had an issue with vehicles, um if we had a pumper go down or something went down for maintenance, um being that we're combined with the city of Ramsey, we had two other fire stations and a multitude of fire equipment that we could pull from those from from um from those fire stations to assist the city. And now then with their fire protection, um we don't have that anymore. So, we are down to what we currently have in our in our rolling stock. Um, and the other piece to this is, um, I spent the better part of of my free time this weekend, um, going through the city, looking at different, um, properties, driveways, accesses, things like that, because I wanted to get a really good feel for the city as far as what what are our setbacks, what do we need, how are we going to fight a fire at this structure, that structure, and and what I've come up with is um, we would have to to fight a structure fire on probably a good 80% of our properties within the city, you'd have to do what's called a rule hitch. A rule hitch means that you you park the the fire engine or the fire truck, the attack engine at the the fire itself, and you have to run a supply line back down to an access point that where we can get tankers and bigger trucks into. Um most of our driveways that I'm seeing the access to them because of lack of of um a common ordinance that um states that you need to maintain emergency access or have a width a road with um things like that um are really um kind of handicapping us in and what we can do. And so putting a large fire truck or fire engine down at that at that scene is going to be much more difficult to do. um it's gonna um you know we could possibly damage our truck doing that. And so having something that's smaller, more nimble, that still has the same capabilities, um really what I'm recommending and what I'm seeing as as probably one of the most viable options for fire for fighting fire within the the community um without having to change people's properties, without having to change ordinances, without having to to um um get people to maintain that access. So, we'd have to look at a different way of firefighting. Um, and so, again, go back to that that supply line issue. We put a a fire engine at the fire. We have a supply line that runs down that driveway or to an access area where we can actually get big trucks, big water in, and then we have to park another fire truck there to then supply that um first engine that's that's back fighting that fire. And so, um, that presents a challenge to us because we don't have that currently today. And so, Even though the the three other options or two other options that I came with before was to replace it with a smaller lighter rescue, it wouldn't have the equipment on it that we need to to do the job. So really what we're looking at is we need a a smaller truck but larger than what we currently have that has the pumping capacity and the capacity to carry the equipment that we need to do that function. And so so with that um I researched used equipment. There is not there is not a market for what we're looking for because we're our community is unique in the fact that we're very rural. We have very large setbacks. There's not a lot of um communities across the country that are like us and the fact that we're surrounded by um developed um cities. The other cities or the other jurisdictions throughout the country that are that are rural, they they're just that. They're rural. They're they're not very populated. We're talking populations of under a thousand. Um we're at that 4,500 mark. We've got a larger population. We have a lot of traffic that runs through here. So, we're unique in our situation. So, there's apparatus out there that are being built, but they're being used and they're not being put up for sale. And so, that market really isn't there. And even the market that I'm finding, I found one truck um that recently sold that's no longer available. And that was that truck was $389,000 for a 2022. So at that point, we're we're we're at that do you do you get a used truck for $389,000 if you can find one? Um or do you just purchase new? And so, uh, moving forward, my recommendation is to purchase purchase the the current vehicle as spec, um, for the $500,000. And that $500,000 would be maximum um that we'd um have to spend on that truck. We're hoping if we work with the manufacturer, we can be somewhere maybe between 470 and 500 depending on on um supplies, tariffs, things like that. That's kind of um the driving fact behind or force behind that. Um, and if that's not an acceptable alternative moving forward, um, the the other option is to keep what we have um, and build a budget to maintain that until until a time that we can actually purchase what we actually need to do to to do the job. With that, I will stand for questions. >> Member Glacier, go ahead, please. Chief, have we has the city of now then ever taken our existing rescue truck to emergency apparatus maintenance EAM over in >> actually uh fire safety I'm sorry Mr. Mayor, council member. Um, actually Fire Safety USA does the maintenance on our vehicle currently. >> Okay. >> So, we do have a professional mechanic that has evaluated that truck and has has done suspension work on that and that engine work. >> You have any type of report that shows uh what the condition of the frame is? >> I don't u currently have a uh report on that from them. Um, that work was done prior to me getting here. So I know that that report is out there. Don't have it in hand or some kind of opinion has been done on it. >> Would it be worthwhile to have that inspected again? Uh when was that last done? >> It was prior council mayor and council members. It was done prior to mine my um employment here. So I'm guessing it was sometime in the fall of 2024. I would think I would say that that condition hasn't changed um since that report. >> So you don't know exactly when it was inspected? I do not. >> But you can get access to the report for us. >> I can definitely ask the company for it. Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Uh I don't have so much so much a question, but just to sort of uh add my two cents here. So, I did visit the fire station and the chief and the assistant or deputy chief, assistant chief and uh sort of had a long discussion about all this and I thought it was pretty educational cuz I don't know anything about firefighting. Um but just to sort of reiterate the point the chief made it, you know, the the rescue truck as I understand it that we have right now, it really doesn't fit our fire operation. We got it when like he said we were combined with the city of Ramsay and so at that time it made sense not to get another you know pump or tanker right and now it just it it doesn't really fit in and so even if you know we could squeeze another 5 years out of it I think we still have a deficit in the fire house right of fire vehicles >> correct >> and um to add to what he was explaining about this uh I uh what did you call it? The rural hitch. So, as I understand it, you know, we got these long driveways. You drive one of the fire trucks all the way up to the house down the driveway. That's the one that's attacking the fire with a couple hoses. >> Then you run hundreds of feet of hosing back to the road and it's hooked up to a tanker at the road, >> another fire engine at the road, council member. Um then the tankers then deliver water to that fire engine. And so how many without getting a new vehicle, how many and including the new truck we're about to get soon here, how many how many tankers or tanks do we have or trucks capable of holding water? >> Currently, um just tankers, mayor, council members, um we have we will when we take delivery of the new one, we will have two tankers that will hold um between the two of them approximately 4,000 gallons of water. Um it takes much more than that to obviously put out a fire. Um the problem with with just having two tankers and one fire engine is we're missing that piece in between. So, we'd have to use um a truck from mutual aid um to to um to fit that piece in into the puzzle, which is many many minutes behind our response because obviously they're coming from other cities, even though we have an autoate response form. Prior to um us going on our own as a fire department, we automatically had other communities that like Ramsey that were coming in that that was part of their um strategy. So, um, and so we don't have that anymore. >> And it that sort of, uh, you know, I I'm already, I guess, a little, I don't bothered is the word, but it it just sort of feels odd that, you know, we have to, you know, we don't have any city water here. And so, if we're attacking a big fire and we have to refill, we got to drive to a different station to refill off of their, you know, either the city water or high flow pump. And in that situation that the chief described if we only have the two trucks, I mean, the mutual aid or the, you know, the mutual aid is going back to their station, grabbing water for us, and bringing it back. And I just, I don't know, I don't like the idea of relying so much on other cities for a fire fighting operation. Um, I just, you know, it sort of seems to me, I mean, we're definitely going to need a new pump and and tank eventually, right, sometime in the near future. >> Mr. Mayor, council members, we will definitely need a a new pumper um in the, you know, in the um we haven't solved our water supply issues. Um that's my plan for the fire department is incrementally grow and we have to talk about what that means. Um getting the right equipment on scene first. We can deal with the water supply issues at a later date. That'll come in the future. That's something that we can really plan for. Um we do have the ability to partner up with our neighbors and they've been nice enough to assist us with that um for getting water from them, things like that. But it's a challenge because right now even for us to train um we for for us to do training with with water um it takes us hours to to do that because we can't go up to St. Francis or Ramsay or any of these other gra 4,000 gallons of water from them because we're going to train on on that night. So we have to use the water that we currently have which is a the the lowflow well which takes about an hour to fill those tankers. And so we have to be very um mindful on how we how we uh training or plan that training otherwise um we do have access to the lake obviously to to uh draft out of the lake for that. Um but yeah that that is definitely an issue that has to be solved in the future. Um but but from my standpoint um what I'm looking for is we need to solve the immediate problem in front of us which is the which is um you the safety issue with the fact of of not having that secondary pump um of a rescue that that is on its last legs for for um all intents purposes. Um we don't know when that's going to go. It could be five years. could be it could be tonight. I don't know. Um but we're really trying to plan for um so that we don't have to deal with that issue on an emergency basis. >> Council member Glacer, go ahead, please. >> Chief Miller, so I' I've got a couple questions, so let's take it in in in bits and pieces. Um so originally we were talking about a new truck and then we got off on a tangent talking about water supply. How many how many gallons would this new truck hold? Uh, Mr. Mayor, council members, it would hold approximately 450 gallons. >> How long would that 450 gallons last? >> On a fire attack, you're probably the first five minutes. >> So, in 5 minutes, that truck needs to go somewhere to get water. And we still haven't addressed And we still haven't addressed our water issue. >> No, no, no. It that truck doesn't need to move. Once that truck is at the at the fire, it stays there. We supply that truck then with another truck for water. So if we had that truck, that truck would be at the fire. The next pumper in, which is our pumper that we currently have, that would supply, they have 1,000 gallons on that truck. That's 1,000 gallons that that supplies. Then our tanker comes in and they have 2,000 gallons. And then another tanker will come in and that's another 2,000 gallons. That truck doesn't move. >> So our existing tanker and the one that we should have taken delivery of already, do both of those have pumps on them? >> Yes, they do. Um, but like I've stated in the past, um, can't have a tanker and a pumper at the same time. So if you're if if you're pumping water or supplying water to the to the fire, that tanker needs to leave to go refill. And so when it does that, we don't have any way to supply that uh pumper that's at the fire itself. >> But even still, regardless of how many trucks we have, we still haven't solved our water issue. >> No, absolutely. We haven't solved our water issue. Uh, Mr. Mayor and council members, um, our water issue is we have to carry water to the fire. And so, um, we don't have we don't have our own water in the city, so we have to go venture outside of our city, which is, um, it takes much much more time to do that because of distance and and time. And so, so water issue is separate than than fighting the fire. Okay. We have by keeping the tanker that we currently have and by adding the tanker that we've already ordered, we have doubled our capacity in how much water we have on hand today. Um the only way to solve our our water issue outside of that is to get a high capacity well that's internal to the city. Um put in a a dry hydrant at Pickaro Lake. Um which then allows a more central location where we can draft from. um or just do what we're doing currently today, which is is rely us with water in an emergency. And so um so they're two separate issues. Firefighting and the water supply completely different completely different things. I understand to have another pumper, >> but wouldn't it be more prudent that the city solved the water issue first? First of all, uh, Mr. Mayor, council members, again, the water issues are separate. >> I understand it. I understand it's a separate is a separate issue. >> Absolutely wouldn't be more prudent because right now, even if I had a high capacity well here today, it doesn't help me move the water from up that thousand ft driveway that we currently have in this city. And there's a lot of them in this. So, I still need a way to move that water up that up that driveway. And so right now I'm missing that that that's the missing link, the missing piece. Um and to be honest with you, um until I until I sat down with staff and talked about like what have we done in the past, how does this worked? Um that was the piece that wasn't wasn't even clicking in in my head because again, although I've been in rural firefighting, the communities that I've I've been in in rural firefighting haven't had thousand foot driveways. this was a new problem that that that you know I am now um discovering and so um I am not afraid to to admit when when I maybe didn't have all the information in front of me um to come back and say this is the this is the correct correct information and this this is why I'm changing my recommendation >> understand why I'm asking so many questions tonight >> 100% this is Mr. Mr. Mayor and council members, this is a this is an expense. It's there's no doubt about it. I don't I don't come up here lightly and ask for um for equipment and ask the city to spend $500,000 if it wasn't um actually needed. This isn't a want by by fire chief Miller. This is an issue that I'm discovering um because again, I'm new to the community. I'm new to this this fire department. I'm new to the history of how we got here. But as I discover problems, I try and come up with solutions for those problems. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council, if I could u maybe jump in and maybe um give some good news. Uh I spoke with Ellers today and the interest rates that they're projecting for the city of Naen because you have really good bond ratings. You're a double double A+ um is only 3.25 25, which is really good. And so we've calculated out what the fire engine will cost an average home that's that's about $495,000. It'll cost them about $33 a year or $2.75 a month. And so that's what that's what you're debating basically is that is that monthly cost of $2.75 or an annual cost of about $33. That's what it will cost the average residential property >> or not. >> Yeah. I this sort of uh I I wanted to sort of finish where I was going with my thought on the you know the eventual need for more equipment anyways and I guess the idea that inflation is going to make this you know exceedingly more expensive even in a year or two um to not purchase it now when we do have a legitimate need for it it just seems a little bit like we're kicking the can down the road and putting a band-aid on something. I mean, we're a growing community. We're not going to shrink as a community. We're only going to grow and get more households. And and I think we're going to need more equipment, and it it sounds like we don't even have enough equipment to handle the number of houses that we have right now. And while I appreciate mutual aid from the other cities surrounding us, it it really bothers me to have to rely on mutual aid. that, you know, the idea that we cannot fight a structure fire alone on a thousand ft driveway, it just it rubs me wrong. We're not a poor community. You know, we have big houses here and prosperous residents and there's no reason why we can't have uh, you know, minimally acceptable fire department that's capable of fighting a fire in one of our houses. I just it it just seems you know especially with uh Lor's analysis there with the actual cost to each resident and I mean if you consider the what this will do to our ISO rating you know I understand that insurance rates are always going to go up due to everything but you know it will have an effect and I would guess that it has more than a $33 effect each year for the duration of this bond. on. And I I mean, even if you just look at it from a financial perspective, given, you know, the increase to the tax bill being more than offset by the uh decreased ISO rating and decreased homeowner uh insurance rates and then also when you're considering we're going to have to buy this thing anyways or something similar to it in a couple years and by then it could be 50% more expensive. What what did you tell me about the the new truck that we just bought it? Didn't you say if we bought it today it would be two or $300,000 more expensive than when >> Mr. Mayor Councel? Um yes at at at prices today from when that that vehicle was bought um those prices have increased about $1500 to $200,000. It just it seems to me that even if we bought this thing and just sat on it for two years and paid the bonds, the the low interest rate would be less than, you know, what inflation is going to do to us. It still financially makes sense. I just it sort of seems like a no-brainer to get this piece of equipment right now. >> Glazers next. Go ahead. >> So, I would like to address the whole ISO issue. Number one, first and foremost, we have never been shown any hard facts or data of what the impact would be to the average resident on their homeowner's insurance if if we got this truck. So, because of that, I've reached out to my insurance agent because, you know, I just also just went through um writing of our insurance and so he's going to help me try and determine what that is. So until then, I would like us to take ISO off the table in regards to this truck because my understanding is two things that that would have a greater impact on ISO would be a water source and additional training, firefighting training for our firefighters. That correct? >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, council members, um I've always stated that that the the um so piece of this is a piece um water supply is has a great effect. Um a well will have some effect but not great effect because don't have a hydranted system. The one thing that the one thing I'd like this council to do is is stop talking about the fact that this is this is going to improve our ISO rating to the point where it's probably going to reduce the average homeowners insurance by the amount that they're going to have to pay on a monthly basis for this truck because it it's it's not based on factor data. One of the one of one of the one of the things and you know I ran on the same thing and I know the mayor ran on this is is we're going to do things based on fact based on data and that data doesn't exist. >> Can I respond to that? >> Sure. Thank you. >> I mean it it's you know you might not have a lot of familiarity with the insurance industry but the ISO score has a direct relevance to the insurance rates. The different insurers have different formulas and they don't disclose those, but they all factor in the ISO rating in some way. It's it's not possible, I don't think, to ask them in advance like, hey, if we get this truck and theoretically it lowers a point, what's this going to do to, you know, my rate? But it is going to have a positive effect. That is what it's used for. I mean, just because we can't put an exact dollar amount on it doesn't mean that we can't point out accurately that it is going to have a positive effect on the insurance rates, >> but you're speaking you're speaking to the point that that it it's probably going to offset what it's going to cost them on this truck. And we don't know that. >> We don't know that. But it's $33 a year per household. I think it's pretty safe to say. I mean, you can look at data and it's just averages because different insurers are different, but you can see how much just even one point drop in the ISO affects a homeowner's insurance rate. And it's far more than $33 per year. So, I feel safe in estimating or making an educated guess that it would offset it. But even if it didn't offset it at all, I mean, that's just like the chief said, it's one factor. It doesn't change the fact that our city still needs this truck. Like, I hate that we're looking at this from a strictly a dollars and cents payoff, whatever. I mean, we're a city and we can't even put out structure fires. Someone's house is burning at the end of a thousand ft driveway and we can't address that without St. Francis or Ramsay. There's something wrong with that. >> Council member uh Brian, please. I get concerned when we say, "Well, there I get concerned when I hear that we have to be able to to be able to fight our own fires and we need to spend all the money to get all the equipment to fight our own fires and not depend on mutual aid." That's going to be impossible. Oak Grove had a fire. The house was right next to Highway 7. They had 75 firefighters from at least 15 different companies coming out because they couldn't get water. We're right next to the road. So just because just because Nan and just to make the point just because Nan has a different firefighter doesn't mean we're still going to be dependent on St. Francis and Oakrove and and Elk River and they even had they even had tankers as I recall from listening to the radio coming from SBM St. Spring Lake Park, Blaine and Mounds View because to solve the water issue. So I understand that we can get the firefighter, but to say that this is going to solve our own problem is not that we it will not be dependent on mutual aid is not true. >> Well, and I'm not saying that this totally eliminates the need for mutual aid. I'm saying it's one step in the right direction. It's at least taking a step in the direction and not just throwing our hands up and say we're never going to get there. We don't have water. You know, we got to have mutual aid. I love mutual aid, and I I think we're always going to have mutual aid to some extent, but I would like I would like to know that our city is capable of attacking one of those fires on their own if need be. And I know that's not going to happen because we are going to have that mutual aid. But just because we're not totally wiping out mutual aid doesn't mean it's still not a good idea to take a step in that direction. I'm hearing two different things, council member Swinson, about um we we don't we we have to get to a point where um we we won't be be dependent on mutual aid at all or and now that we're going to need it. We're going to need it. >> Yeah, I acknowledge that. >> Okay. That's not what I heard when you first started talking about we have to have this truck because that means we're not going to have mutual aid. We won't need mutual aid. >> That's how it came across to me. >> Okay. Well, that's not what came out of my mouth, I don't think. If it did, it came out garbled. I'm just saying I don't like the idea that we absolutely rely on mutual aid, that we cannot handle our own fire without mutual aid. I love that we have mutual aid and we probably always will utilize mutual aid and provide mutual aid to the cities around us. But, you know, just because you have a neighbor with a big fancy mower doesn't mean you don't get your broken lawn mower repaired because he's going to mow your lawn for you. I mean, get the thing fixed, buy a new lawn mower. You know, I I like the idea of a prosperous town like ours that's growing and expanding to have the capability to function as a town, >> as a city. >> Council Reno is next. Go ahead, Council M. Thanks, Mayor. Um, >> and we will unless unless we were to go down to halfacre lots and we sewer and water the entire city, we will we will be dependent on that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be prepared as a department to have the equipment needed to to fight fires on behalf of our residents. When we moved in 20 years ago, we didn't have anything. um my my insurance rate after I moved in went up. When we first then came in in 2021 when we started or not 2021, when we started working with Ramsay, I called my insurance company and we we went out and looked at how far the the water supplies were and because we had part of Ramsey, we didn't have anything here, but we had Ramsey that we could depend on and there was one other city and I can't remember if St. Francis, but our rate went down. Um, you're never an insurance con company. You ask them if you called them today and said, "What's my ISO rating going to go down?" They're not going to be able to tell you a percentage. And whatever that percentage it goes down is going to be different than your neighbor because unless you and your neighbor have the same policy, same company, um, you're not comparing apples to to apples. Um I believe we we we should purchase this piece of equipment. Um we can deal with the well issue. Um we but but this is an important piece to have and I think that we owe the residents our duty is to protect our residents and and yes, it's $500,000. What Lori Jagger said today is good news. um because anything that we bond for this year will all also be at that lower rate which is great. The city um and past council has done a good job of keeping us with our double A rating which is very helpful. We want to be cognizant of that and staying with that so that we can continue with low interest rates. Um but I think it would be a disservice to our residents if we didn't move ahead on purchasing this um vehicle. it will help us in the process. I mean, my driveway is probably 8 or 900 ft long and and once unless you get up to the house, there's no way to get more than one vehicle down my driveway. So, to have the ability to stage the ve the the the trucks in the order that they're needed so that water can get to the house, I think is important. And if this helps us do that, and it's not the only thing this vehicle is going to do for us. There'll be other things that it we use it for. If I'm not incorrect with that, Fire Chief Miller, I I I believe we should purchase those trucks. >> Thank you, Glazer. Go ahead. >> Can I ask a question, Chief? So, use the example of the long driveway. And so, just say the engine goes up to the house and that's your primary. Next thing, could you stage one of the tankers out at the road? Even if it's 1,000 feet, can the tanker push 1,000 ft up to the engine vehicles you need in line? So, maybe you can break this down a little bit because it sounds like we have three pumps right now. Each tanker has a pump. >> So, I need some help filling in the gap there. >> Council, mayor and c mayor and council members. Um, yes, the um, one of our tankers has a large enough pump to do that, but that that pump can't stay at the seam because it part of the the train of water that comes in and is bringing water. So, so having that having the that the the the leaving that tanker on scene with 2,000 gallons of water, um, we may run through that 2,000 gallons of water and have to go get more. Um, and so you'd have to disconnect that truck, then reconnect another truck that has a pump and and do this constantly. Um, every time you disconnect a truck and reconnect a truck, you lose water. And so, um, the worst thing you can do at a fire is interrupt the host streams. So, if we're actually actively fighting fire, we need that water supply to be constant. And to do that, you have a in our case, you'd have a fire engine at the end of the driveway. You'd have the attack pumper at the the the the house. Um, and then you have drop tanks on the ground that the that the tankers are filling um uh for that supply. And so that that the the missing piece we have right now is that that ISO rated pump. And when I say ISO rated pump, it means that it's more than 750 gallons a minute for ISO rating. Okay. Just take the ISO rating piece off of it. But we have to have an ISO rating rated pump because we need to push that much water. >> 750 gallons per minute. >> Per minute. >> That's a lot. >> Yeah. And so really ideally what we want is 1,000 gallons a minute. Okay. when it when it comes to firefighting. Um, one of our one of our hand lines um that we take into a fire is flows about 200 gallons a minute. And so um when you start to do the math on that, it takes quite a bit of pumping capacity, quite a bit of water to do that. Um I know the fire that you're speaking of in in Oakrove and and that was like um they calculated out to somewhere around 100,000 gallons of water that they flowed at that fire. Um that's it takes it takes a a village effort to to put that kind of fire out. Um we will never um we will never operate without mutual aid. But but to council council member Swson's point is that some point that fire is going to go out. some point we need to release mutual aid. Um and if we don't have our own fire equipment within that line of of attack, we are we are um relying on our mutual aid companies who have come to help us to to be that link um in our water supply and and that's something that we don't want to do. That's something that I think is a burden. um if we you know we asked them to do it today and they've been more than happy to do that for us, but they understand that we're we're a fledgling fire department. We're getting up off the ground. Um and so with that said, that that's kind of the the link that we're looking for. And the one t our old tanker, excuse me, that currently have that pump isn't rated. It's only 300 gallons a minute. >> It's really just a tanker then at that point, >> right? But it is it's enough of a pump to fill that truck when we go to a hydrant or a water supply static something like that. So it's good it's a good enough pump to fill it. Not a good enough to pump push water. >> Let's run this one more time. If this is the house you run your engine up here it's it then back here 1,000 m back,000 ft,000 ft. >> We can have our one new tanker that's just about to be delivered. >> Nope. You'd have a fire engine. >> Well, what what's up here? >> That's a fire engine. You need two. You need two pumps. We only got one fire engine, right? >> Right now we do. Yep. So >> on fire engine. So he has to go up there. Fire engine's by the house. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. Currently today. >> Currently today as we have it. So you have a tanker 1,000 ft back. The new one can pump all the way to that fire engine right by the house. >> Correct. >> Okay. So that gives you your two two uh pumps that you needed. Your old tanker is all it's good for basically is to dump water. >> Correct. >> Okay. We're not in a dire situation because we can we have the two pumps that you just said. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Y >> trying to set the stage so everybody's tracking on this. >> Absolutely. >> Because it's it's important for all of us to be synchronized on us. It's a request. It's an ask. >> Don't have a ton of fire fire calls and now then but again setting stage. So other things we talked about training is really important. Having the right equipment is important. manpower building the department and then water as uh council member Glazer brought up. So all these elements have to come together for us to be this fully functional. So it can't just be one piece. So again as we plan and we look and say how do we use planning to our advantage of this because it's going to take some time to bring all these pieces together. So if we get you the pump or this rescue truck tomorrow right now we got missing link of we don't have all the training we don't have all the manpower we don't have all the water. So we have other gaps. >> Absolutely. Mr. Mayor and Council, that that is on my plan for 26 to get the physical pieces in in place and we're going to work on the the soft pieces, if you will, the training, the manpower, um things like that. And and that's moving forward. And I've I've said it a 100 times here, this is incrementally growing this fire department. And so I'm trying to to to do the best that that I can with the resources that we have in place. very much tracking that. So, just as we talk about this as a council, so the question, do we need a truck at some point? The answer is sure, but when do we purchase the truck is really how I'd like to look at it. And when can we line up and say, hey, the training will be complete. Uh we got our high volume well that we talked about and uh we got enough manpower for all this to come together. Well, if just throw this out there in 2026, we may be there. 2027, we're probably getting pretty close to being there. Something like that. So, he's also provided another option to say you don't have to replace the truck today. You can go with option two, which is wait until 2028. And what this one of the things I wanted to really look at is before we just go out and spend money, what if we looked at saving some money so we can purchase the truck. So, and I do this instead of bonding for this, what if we took and said, "Hey, maybe next year we can save $40,000." I don't know what the amount is, but just say 40,000. And then in 2020 um six we could save uh or 2027 we save 40,000 and then we purchase that truck in 2028. So we've got some amount of money. We can still go bond for it. Yep. Prices are going to be go up. I get it. They're always going to continue to go up, but it gives us some time for all these factors to come in so we can utilize them all at the same time. So something like that. All right. Anybody else got any comments? Councilman Rainbow, go ahead. Um, it would be nice if we could had no limits on on what we could do and we could have the well tomorrow, a new vehicle and 30 new firefighters. Um, but that isn't going to happen. We we don't have the the the money for that. Um, not due to mismanagement or anything like that. We just don't have that kind of money. Um, I see this as a good proactive step and getting us to a point where we can be as self-sufficient as we possibly can as a fire department in a rural area. Again, it's been stated we'll always need mutual aid, but if we can be less of a burden on those other municipalities, I'm that makes me feel good. to delay the purchase of a vehicle till 2028. The condition that has been been discussed on on the existing vehicle, we could have thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in repairs on that. And at what point do you stop fixing the hole in the roof and that hole and that hole and that hole and replace the roof? I mean, have to think of that. Um, I think we would be good stewards of the taxpayers's dollars to to do this. And there are dollars, too. We we all pay taxes. Um, I think this is a good step towards getting us um to be more of a self-sufficient um department. Again, understanding we'll always have mutual aid. Um, hard decision. It's a lot of money. Um, but I think it's what's needed. The chief has been working on training. um the water source will come. Um on that um but I I I think this is a good a good thing for our residents. >> Yeah. I agree with you that I love. >> But is it a safety issue? As chief just said, we we can fight the fire. We're going to rely on mutual aid, but we have the pumps to fight the fire right now. It's not ideal. It's not perfect, but we can do it. So, I don't know. It's We're saying it's a safety issue. And I'm sorry for interrupting. I should have >> Mr. Mayor, council members, currently the the with our we'd have to put our fire engine up at the the front. It's a much larger truck. It's heavier. um slower. Um you know, can I can I equate that out or extrapolate that out into lives saved, property saved? What I do know from my 37 years of fighting fire is the sooner you get by water, um the the more property, the more lives you're going to save, period. So, um, so to the point of, you know, is it a safer vehicle to to to maneuver up these driveways and into these areas? 100% it's a much safer vehicle than if I were to put that up those um up those paths. And and and again, we don't have a standard driveway. Some are some are very wide, some are paved, and some look like goat trails. >> That's a very true true statement. We do not have a good stand driveway. >> And so, >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, um can >> go ahead, Merger. >> Thank you. Um you had mentioned uh m possibly saving some money over the next few years to purchase equipment and and I do have that as as in a plan to do just that in the future. But um looking at the next few years anyway, um you're going to be using fund balance to transfer to um other other funds, equipment, capital, um things like that and debt service that you need to do um to purchase other equipment or pay for capital. And the only way you could save is by increasing the levy specifically to to pass that on to the equipment fund. So that's the only way you could do it in the future. >> Rainbow, go ahead. >> And and if we so save 20 40,000 and 26 and 40,27, where are we going to be based on the cost? um increases for that piece of equipment, possibly um a higher interest rate. We may be at the same we may not have progressed at all in having that or something that and today's value is is 475. >> We would have waited to do that with our engine that we're waiting on. Um Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, the that engine that we ordered, we ordered that in 20121 and it's just getting delivered today. And so this engine that is now you're thinking of ordering may not be delivered for 2 or 3 years. I I have no idea. >> What's the lead time of the engine if we ordered one? >> 14 mayor council members 14 to 18 months. Glazer, go ahead. >> Who's the man? Where's the manufacturer? >> Uh, they're out of OciOla, Wisconsin. Mr. Mayor, council members, um, manufactures quite a bit of, uh, equipment throughout the area. >> This may council members, um, there's Rosenbar, that's out of Wyoming, um, a much more expensive product. Um, closest. Um otherwise fire equipment doesn't necessarily truck like this um because they're custom fire does all sorts of different equipment on all sorts of different platforms. Hold up. Councilman Brian, you got anything right now? You've been quiet for a minute. >> So, Mr. Mayor, Chief Miller, the either way how it would work because I'm understanding this. Tell me if I got So if we had this this rescue vehicle that had the ISO rated pumper that theoretically could be the attack vehicle by the 1,000 ft back would be the engine and and if that we had this vehicle those two could either could those two could swap. You would have the rescue or the engine at the at the house and then the other one,000 ft back acting as a pump. Those are drawing out of a pool for for water, a portable tanker or however you want to call it. I'm a critic as I understand it. And then you've got your tankers just basically supplying that portable pool that's being then pumped up to the house. >> That is correct. >> Right now, we would have the engine up by the house. in theory, our new pumper in the middle pumping water out of if we didn't have this new this other rig. We'd then have the pumper, the new pumper pumping out of the temporary holding water tank. Then we'd have one tanker refill just if we were just now alone, we'd have one tanker then refilling that. Council members, >> yes. So the the the the pumper you're referring to is a tanker has a pump on it. So it does not necessarily have the capabilities of a a pump, but yes, it it can supply the water to that to that fire engine that's at the front. >> Glacier, go ahead. >> Chief, would you explain to me how our paid on call firefighters are scheduled? They get do are they are. And keep in mind, you know, I for residents that are watching this or going to watch this, right now we only have 12 12 paid on call firefighters, 13 with the chief. How How are they scheduled? Um, it's an interesting question, but we're how can you tie that into how that >> I I plan on it. So, if you could just bear with me, I'd like the I'd like the chief to to help me understand because because, you know, we're talking about adding a vehicle and we only have so many firefighters. >> And so, you know, there's almost a reliance on mutual aid from that standpoint because of the number of number of trained firefighters that we have. >> You're asking how many people go in each vehicle? Is that what you're looking at? >> Well, yeah. And do do the firefighters, for instance, on let's say a weekend, is is everybody scheduled to be on call every weekend? >> Mr. Mayor, council members, um we don't have scheduled firefighters. We have paid on call firefighters who respond from home um based on their availability. Currently, um the system that we're relying on is firefighter as as a call comes in, we can notify our each other by cell phone on an app that we use for first due to get our calls. And so we know exactly how many people are showing up to responding to a call. Um and and that varies based on on their their schedule, their work, their family life. Um currently we are doing a very very good job with the with the personnel that responding to calls. We have a a dedicated group of individuals who see the importance of this department. They want to build this department. They have a lot of pride in this department. Um and they are doing a wonderful job at responding. And so um our plan is to keep building this department. Again we are going to increment this department. We are going to add staffing. comes that that comes with response and and each individual that we have is absolutely dedicated to the city of now that I couldn't ask for a better >> not question that at all >> that that has that has nothing to do with my question it my question pertains to we're talking about adding a fourth large firefighting vehicle and how does the amount staff affect the ability to get all these vehicles out, get them back and forth. For instance, you know, if we have a fire that requires them to go to a high volume water source and get more water, you know, that's that's taking somebody off the fire, does it require more than one person to to leave the leave the site to get that water? >> So, to answer your question, uh, Mr. Council members, the as far as the staffing in and the truck, um the the truck would replace the current truck. And so there's four firefighters can fit in the current one. Four firefighters can fit in the in the future fire. Um as far as staffing for leaving the scene to get water. Um it takes generally one to two firefighters. We can get away with one firefighter who's highly trained to go get that water and and bring it back to operate that tanker. So, we may put four firefighters in that tanker, but three of them will be left behind at the help staff um the fire scene. Um and then that one driver then would would circulate. >> Go ahead, Council Member Swson. L um Mr. Greg, I'd like to go to you next and maybe if you can pull up the CIP plan or the CE plan, C plan so we can just look at it on what other fire equipment is um planned for the next couple years. That would be really helpful for me to look at. Council member Swanson, go ahead. >> Thank you. I just wanted to respond to Councilman Glazer's points about concerns about staffing. Um, you know, I don't think it's I asked those questions last week whether this would allow only one truck to respond to vehicle fires or vehicle crashes because currently I understand you got the truck responding. So, it has the equipment and then you also have the engine with the water. So, you need two vehicles. But theoretically with this new truck, you could just have that one vehicle respond if we didn't have enough people to show up to fill two trucks. Right. Mr. Frank House, that is correct. Y >> and so it's not the plan to just use that and deploy one truck, right? I mean, you probably do you will you still deploy both of them or do you think you will only deploy that one on accidents? >> Mr. Mayor, council members, it's really dependent on the call, right? Um so if we can handle a call with only four firefighters and one truck, we'll do that. if we if we can. >> Council member Rainville, go ahead. >> As the chief mentioned that the delivery time on this is 14 to 18 months. That gives us a lot of time to worry um to allow the chief to build the department up. Um he has talked about that numerous times as far as doing recruitment programs. Um, so hopefully by the time this comes in, we could have another 10 firefighters. I mean, and that would help with the ability to keep our staff on site. But as chief said, they're on call. If it's a hunting weekend, you may be short of people. If it's a holiday weekend, you may be short of people. The larger base you have to draw from, and hopefully we'll have that larger base in 14, 18 months, that will be a benefit to us. on. It's not going to make any changes. If we agree to this tonight, residents are not going to see a difference tomorrow and see difference for a while, but it is something that um forward with it, they will eventually see. Miss Jagger, could you uh pull up the uh the CE plan C plan for the fire department and show us other piece of equipment that they're requesting for the next five years? >> Miss Jagger, you're on mute. >> Yep. Okay. It does say that I'm sharing it. It's You can't see it. >> Can you see that? >> My screen right now there. Yeah, it's not being shared where we're not seeing it. >> Oh, so now what do I do? Sorry. >> If you can't if we can't get through it and share it, you could probably just talk us through and just say, "Hey, what's >> budget for 26 27 28?" >> Okay. So, in um 2025 with the possibility of buying this rescue truck, the rescue truck is uh 2005, I believe, and it's supposed to last 20 years, and so it it is at the end of its life. Um, the next fire truck to be replaced is the Grass One and that is a 2008 and I can't describe that for you. Don't know what that is, but we have about it's about $125,000. Uh, then there's some portable radios being purchased. Um, the grass truck is 2028 and the radios are 2029. Um, other than that, it goes out to the the SCBAs, the air packs. They should be replaced in 2034. So, um, now you're getting out there. So, that's the next big thing is the grass one truck at 125,000. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Jagger, for sharing that. >> Can you just give me a chief a brief description of the grass one? What kind of cost are we looking at to replace it? So I'm just trying to put it in perspective on what we're looking at for not only the next couple years. This would be in 2028. So >> absolutely. >> So we're not kicking the can right to a spot where we now we got to purchase two trucks if we're going to do this. So trying to be as strategic as possible. >> Mr. Grant Council, um I believe that that that truck at $125,000 is probably at the top end of replacing that um in 2028. Um it really depends on on pricing and if there's might be some um some savings that we can um garner from that. Um >> council member F350, >> Mr. Mayor, council members, it's it's an F350. It's a it's a twoerson cab, which isn't ideal for us. Again, >> what we would be looking at to get it'd be like it'd be like getting an truck, but we'd probably have the crew cab so we can get more people in it. >> Correct. to 3/4 ton truck. >> We're coming up to this by a lot of good discussion on this. Uh we do need to make a vote, but let's talk through the options. Option one, you said, is to purchase the F750 approximately $500,000. We wouldn't receive it for 14 to 18 months. Option two is basically to not do anything. You maintain your current vehicle and you review it. Um, as Miss Joerger said, saving money is probably not something that we can do. Is that correct, Miss Jagger? >> That is correct. >> Saving money. So, >> my great idea FY is is already busted. Um, >> but I I think there's some additional options in there. One, we could purchase the truck this year and then if you looked at two, we could move forward with the same motion next year and purchase the truck. So, 2026. I think we got to be super careful if we're bonding because if in 2028 we said we need to p purchase a grass truck also. So the question is is do we purchase a truck or do we delay the purchase of the truck? Are there other options? I know one of the things chief I talked about a used uh a used option and there's not a good process for buying used trucks and fixing them. I don't think the city wants to be going down that road of the used route. So I think probably new is the right thing but what is the right timing? And that's the question that I'm struggling with. $500,000 is a lot of money. And at work, I can adjust it. It's an ROI. Here's my payback. There's no payback directly for this. And that's the piece that it makes it much more difficult to make a decision on because it's it's timing. But if I don't have all the elements, I can't do it. But we got to have to get all of them coming together. And so that's my struggle right now. >> Mr. Mayor Counc the issue of bonding. What we've tried to do is bond every other year and include road projects and whatever because we get a better value for our dollar. There are less administrative costs. So, if we do not bond for this and our road this year, we're going to take money out of the bank. Um, and if we if we or if we if we do not bond for this piece this year, we're going to have to take money out of the bank next year to purchase it and or bond it. And that bond could be one at a higher interest rate and then we're paying duplicate administrative fees >> for the bond. >> For the bond if it would be 2025 or 2027 >> at ideally for so if we want to start saving for the grass rig, we can do that. If we're three years out on that, we can start saving for the grass rig. And hopefully um with prudent financial management, we won't have to bond for that. It's $125,000 at a max. >> The shaker said we can't save. >> That's correct. >> Not at all. >> U Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I right now the uh most I can transfer into the equipment fund every year is $10,000. That's what I'm I'm looking at transferring. So when we don't have right now our balance in there is $20,000. And so you have and that's if we do not increase the tax levy. >> That's correct. Well, no. >> That's even with an increase uh you know not not increasing it for the transfer in but but just uh having the increase for the bonds. um that you know I've got $620,000 coming in here for bonds in 2025 if you purchase that equipment because there's other equipment that's being purchased with that bond. There's a tool cat Bobcat that's 2009. Um that that is being purchased with this money. And then also the Sterling dump truck, the uh the box is also being purchased with bond money. And so those items will still need to be bonded for regardless if you buy this truck or not. Those items would be included with a in a bond. So that that bond is is an expense this year. If we pull this piece out, then we have those administrative costs and um an unknown interest rate next year if we move this purchase of this vehicle to 2026. >> Yes. And I I would not recommend uh bonding again in 26. It's just uh the administrative fees are are too much for that. So right now when you're when you're combining your your bond issue, you're you're really saving money by by doing it all in the same year rather than having a bond every year. >> Miss Jagger, just one more note on that is we delayed the the the truck replacement of the Sterling, which was supposed to be 2025 or 2026 because we're replacing the box. So we can move that is it two years or three years down the road before we bond for that truck. Uh, we don't bond for that truck until 202031. 2031. >> That's going to be a $400,000 expense approximately. >> Yes. It is. >> Yep. Yep. And at that same year, there's a John Deere tractor that that needs to be replaced and that's $200,000. So, you have quite a few of equipment purchases uh coming up besides besides in fire, you have um public works type equipment that's going to be needing replacement. So, and I'm I'm sorry I can't share it. >> That's Rava. Um, I am comfortable in moving that we uh vote to move forward with the uh purchase of the rescue truck for the fire department at a price of $500,000. >> I would second that. >> Did you Did you motion it or did you just >> I'm moving it? Yes. >> Okay. So, you got a motion. We got a second. Any other discussion on it? Mr. Mayor, Council Brian, >> I'm just trying to go through the budget because I know this came up last year where we that the end we budgeted for 200 about this is very approximate. We budgeted for about $270,000 for the fire department for 2024. Then in the end, we came up with a projected 28. So that was about $60,000 that was theoretically not spent from last year that theoretically could have stayed with the fire department for other things. And knowing that we budgeted for $315,000 for 2025. Um, this is kind of where it's I I know I I I mentioned that it would be nice to see where we are when we're talking about this. Is the fire department on track? Are we way ahead? I know there's been some repairs, but what exactly are there? >> Miss Jagger, answer that question for us. >> U Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Miss, can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the >> Can you try and turn things up? Volume up on your side. We've tried on our side. We're not hearing you. >> Your microphone volume. >> Okay. I'm looking here. Let's see. How's that? >> Talk or talk closer to your screen. >> Can you hear me now? >> Worse now. >> Is that better? >> No. >> Yeah. I'm I'm really having a hard time. This zooming isn't working very well. I'm uh I'm missing out on lots of the conversation and you're obviously not hearing me either. So that's why >> we got you. You're just a little bit quiet, ma'am. >> Okay. Okay. I'm I'm talking loud and um so I'm looking at the 2024 uh fund balance. We actually had added $11,000 to fund balance in 2024. Um, and I'm projecting that in 2025 you're going to add about $160,000 to fund balance because you do not have an administrator anymore. And so you're saving a lot of money in 25. But when I look at the 26 budget so far where I'm where I'm looking at that, we're going to be using 400,000 over $400,000 in fund balance. And so if I take those prior year savings, you're going to be spending that in 26. And the biggest reason for that is back in earlier years, we postponed doing a debt service levy at the full amount. We only did it at a partial amount so that we did not have to levy as much money annually. And now we need to transfer money from the general fund to those debt service funds to make up for those levies that we did not do. and you have the you have the fund balance available. You can do that. So, but to say that you can continue to do that annually is not practical. >> Brian, did I answer your question? >> No, I didn't. >> Um, >> is there a specific Can we ask in a different way? >> What is the specific for 2025? What is the the current year-to-ate spent just for the fire department? >> Um, I don't have that right off the top of my head here. Uh, the the year-to- date spent, what I I can give you what I'm projecting for the fire. Um, as far as what I think they will spend, uh, if you're recording the budget, correct? Correct, council member. >> Right. It's hang on here. Um they their budget in 2025 >> is 360 or 314,000 and I think they'll spend about 258. So they will be under budget in 25. >> What was the total dollar amount under budget? >> 65. They will be under budget by um let's see about $60,000. >> Mr. Mayor, >> can you you go first? >> Yeah. Could I have um Rob address that just because we have looked at it all the way through May. I'm not all the way done with June yet for all those expenses and he can kind of tell you where he was. >> Council member Glaz will fall down. Well, and it's to uh what Miss Johnson is is already addressing because the chief made a face that that uh said we needed followup. >> Council member, sorry for the the face. Um I don't believe that I don't believe that we will be that far under spent um right now because of um of uh training that we're going to implement um and uh hiring process that we're going to implement. So, I think I think we'll be closer to 90% spent by the time we get done depending on on >> You're going to come in at budget. >> I'm going to come in in budget, not over. Um, but I'm going to come in at budget. >> So, it's probably not a surplus if you're going to allocate it for training and doing all the right things. >> Correct. >> Brian, did that answer your question? >> Closer. Mayor, >> but I don't think I'm going to get that answered tonight. And that's that's the challenge with the other Well, I guess the other question I had too, sorry, Natalie, was are we literally saying let's set up an amount to bond or are we literally saying we have to I mean, are we saying tonight that we want to look at including $500,000 in a bond or are we literally saying we are agreeing to purchase the truck tonight? Cuz I think those are two different issues. >> So the answer would be that she would set up the bond. So, we're not purchasing the truck, but she's going to bond it. >> Set up. Set it up. >> Set up the bond. That would be >> could be there that we could purchase it at >> Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Can I interrupt? If we if we issue debt, we have to purchase that equipment within three years. >> So, you have three years to purchase that equipment. >> Three years to buy the truck is what I'm trying to get at. >> To pay for it. Yes. >> To pay for it. doesn't mean you have to go forward and buy the truck right now today. It's sometime in the future. >> Yeah. I'm just trying I'm just I I'm hearing questions that we don't have answers for. We don't know the exact on the budget. We don't know exactly. Um we haven't we don't know. There was a question from council member Glazer about the the specific condition of the truck now and what theoretically could be done to it and and and how how that ISO could would should impact taxes. So there's just questions that I I'm I'm struggling with because I don't have the answers and I probably am not going to get the answer tonight. >> The ISO question you may never get the answer on. So just be aware of that. Did you have another statement you wanted to >> I do. Um and Mr. Mr. Mayor, council members, I just would like Lori to would any of those questions where we are today or how we end at the end of the year, would that affect anything that we're talking about tonight as far as numbers for 2026? >> I mean, you're talking 20,000 or 40,000 under possibly. >> How much will that make a difference? >> Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. So the debt service levy for this equipment will be $60,000 annually basically. And so whether you buy it today or you buy it in 27, if we bond for it now, you have that ability to to purchase it over the next 3 years and it will cost $60,000 a year. But if we bond for it, we have to purchase it within three years. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Rainbow, >> I guess I'm a question. So, we would say, let's say today we we determine we're going to bond for it. Why would we wait 3 years to order it when then that's another 14 to 18 months after that and we don't know what the cost of the vehicle would be in 3 years? I don't know that anybody's saying that they would wait. They're just saying that's >> I just that to to to Miss Jagger's point that's an option. I I don't believe that's a good option. There's too many unknowns with it. >> We're going to go forward with the bond. It wouldn't make sense to wait 3 years. Would it be makes sense to wait 3 months or 6 months? Maybe. Don't know. We'd have to discuss that. But it was just the timetable. Okay. So, we still got a motion. We got a second. Was there any other follow-up questions before we go to vote? hearing none. Miss Jagger, can I get before we go to vote, what is your recommendation from a financial standpoint? >> Did we move with this or >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council? I would recommend moving forward with this at this point because the interest rates are so good. It's 3.25. I don't believe it in you know historically we've had lower interest rates but that was such an unusual situation. 3.25 is a very good interest rate and I've seen them much higher than that. So to me this is a good opportunity to take advantage of it and the equipment you know what the cost is going to be and you'll have it for 20 or 30 years. Yeah, my pref my preference would be to do nothing this year and do it next year. Well, that's not a good option because we're not bonding next year. So then if you put it two years out, then you got to wait a full another year to get it. So then you're three three and a half years out. So it really comes down to are we going to do it tonight or are we not going to do it? So it's going to be a yes or no vote. Any other comments before we go? No perfect solution here on this one. >> All right. So we already got our second. Do you want to restate your motion one more time, Miss Council Rainbow? >> That the council forward with setting up a bond >> in the approximately 500,000 >> Okay, it's already been second. Uh all those in favor say I. >> What's that? >> Is this setting up the bond or is this setting up the bond as well as the purchase? have to purch Are we purchasing it this year in 2025 or can we wait three months, four months as we get closer to the year end to see if there might be some possibilities or we might get some other information regarding what ISO means clarification or or whatever funds might be might come available. >> So can you amend your motion to clarify? >> My motion is that we Good with second. Second that. >> Yep. >> Okay. Does that answer your question, sir? >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Nay. >> All right. Motion carries. >> Yes. Council member, >> just want to clarify that I had more information that I would have voted for put setting up the bond so we had the money to buy the truck, but not necessarily right at this moment. Have that on record. >> So, there will be a proposal coming forward when he figures out the the truck and gets clarification, he'll bring it forward and say, "All right, now we found the truck uh that we can purchase." >> So, it it it's basically setting up the fund for it. >> Mr. Mayor, isn't it it's not a matter of finding the truck. It's a matter of putting in the purchase order to have it built. >> Correct. >> Council member, Mr. Mayor, council members, it's it's a matter of actually um bidding it out to make sure that we have exactly the truck we want and what the price will be. Not a bid out, but but spec out. Sorry. Spec out. But the bond has to go through. So, this is voting for the bond. When you find it and figure it out, you're going to come back with us with a total cost, >> correct? and say this is what I would like to move forward with. >> Correct. >> He's I believe he still needs approval on the truck before we put the PO in. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure because I think there's potential that we need to do. I just wanted to say I'm not opposed to doing something, but the fact that I don't want it to come across that that you know that no, we're not doing anything for our fire department. I just wanted to be clear that that's not the case. It's just a matter of how we're funding it and when we're doing it. >> Point, council member. Thank you. Well, you just voted to to, you know, apply for the bond and purchase the truck. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> So, that that does set up some time frame of in the next 5 months or something, you can go get it speced out and we will move forward with purchase. Chief, you got a lot of work to do. You got training and manpower and water yet? I do. going to get your equipment. Thank you very much. >> Okay, next next agenda item. We're on number five. Council me or Miss Johnson, are you leading the job description conversation? >> Yeah, I just um Mr. Mr. Mayor and council members, I just wanted you to review the job descriptions as we really didn't have them. Um, as far as all the different jobs that the staff does, >> these were all in the packet. Correct. >> They are all in the packet. Everybody should have been able to have review for them. I did break down. >> Anything specific on any job description that you wanted feedback on? Because there's like a lot of job descriptions in here as I reviewed them and a lot of them are similar but only slightly different. Exactly. And that is why at some point in the future, I would love to be able to change um one of the of the staff to a deputy clerk and one of them to like an administrative one or two so that we can combine a lot of these jobs like they all they have to do. >> So you're looking at approval for what what you're presented here, but you would like to in the future future in the next year or something like that. >> Combine all of them. >> Yes, please. >> Yes, please. >> This is confusing and redundant. I I you got five people write the job descriptions on what they're doing and put it all in there. >> It is and that's but we don't really know exactly what everybody's going to do yet over for a couple years because we've never really been fully staffed. >> All right. Is there any conversation need to be had on the job descriptions? Mr. Mayor, I would I would move to table these things to to our next meeting. I was, you know, Yeah. Yeah. Maybe I should have checked my email. Been busy with work. I was under the impression tonight we were meeting about the fire department only and possibly having a swear in a uh um a badge ceremony for the gentlemen that the the staff that were being promoted within the fire department. So I have not had a chance to review anything. >> Ma'am, would that cause you any issue if we table this? >> How long do you want to table it? >> August 12th is our next council meeting. >> Does it have to wait that long? Is that something? Uh, I'm just check. We're here back here tomorrow night again specifically on the budget. >> That was us. >> We're going through the budget, Mr. Mayor. And we move that to Monday >> with Lori. >> We're not back here until the 20. We're back here on the 23rd with the budget with Lori. >> Okay. Could we table till the 23rd? I >> I don't see this will be a long piece. No, this should not be. Council member Glazer wants to review them. I respect that. Could we add them to the 23rd's agenda? >> Absolutely. >> Does that work for you, Councilman? >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> So, shelf this one uh or table it, sorry, is with proper terminology. >> Um, so that's job descriptions. Next one. Council member Swinson, is that are you leading this one? >> Sure. >> Is Miss Jagger, is she going to listen on? Yeah, >> I I think the idea was to try to figure out the salary before we get too far along in the budget process. I don't know that we need her input today. I guess I don't know. >> Natalie and Miss Jagger, I need a recommendation on what on if she's going to stay on or not. I I don't know what the intent was. Lori, with the salary difference with me for whatever it might be, is is it going to make a big difference into the budget or would you have an opinion that after I step out you can talk to them or not? >> No, no, it it just I just need to know that's all. >> Okay. >> It's I need to know. >> Mr. Mayor, don't forget to hit end. >> I will hit end on the that. So, is she is she Miss Jagger staying on? >> Nope. I'll >> sign up. Thank you, ma'am, for your time. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. >> Okay. So, it's just the council chief left us. >> Okay. Council member Swanson, you're up. >> All right. Thank you. So, I uh I was doing some research on the salary for uh the new position we created here, the city clerk as a head of the government, which is >> Can I ask you what page we should be looking at at this point? >> I mean, page one. I don't know. >> Recommendation. >> This Okay. This this received. >> Thank you. This is the one that was delivered tonight. >> Okay. >> That's why I'm like I don't know what to look at. >> Yeah. >> I haven't seen this one yet. >> And I didn't mean to spring this on anyone. I was planning on working on this for some future date, but I know that we were striving to get this done for the budget process so we can get the number figured out and we've already sort of sort of let it sit for a couple months. So I I did my best on trying to uh research this and I think the the challenge is that now then it's sort of a unique city with the characteristics we have and the proximity to the metro area. And so I did my best in trying to find um other comparable cities and I've got sort of two uh goes at it. Um uh section three I got that data from the LMC salary survey. They >> Which page are you saying when you say section three >> on the second page? >> Okay. Salary benchmarking. >> Yep. And so salary benchmarking, it's from the LMC um salary survey for 2025. And they send, you know, survey out to cities and ask what they pay all their staff people. And so I just narrowed it down to the city clerk if they were acting as administrator or the city administrator and then try to further narrow it down based on population and characteristics. And none of these are perfect and spot-on. I mean, nothing is, you know, directly correlatable to us, but I I think I I've gotten sort of close on these. And, you know, I I feel comfortable justifying, you know, my conclusion at the end, which was a salary of 115,000. What I was finding was a range of 105 maybe to 125 for a city clerk as a head of government, a city administrator as a head of government. they get paid more. Um, and so that is lower than that range. After well, 3A is that uh LMC survey stuff. 3B, this is my prior research. I was trying to uh just use the internet, I guess, and find research these cities. And so I I described some of the characteristics of these cities and I think it explains for itself why I think some of these are pretty comparable to us. And I think the the salaries in uh in these cities further support the the range I sort of outlined uh in 3A. So um again I I apologize to sort of spring this at the last minute but I I was sort of rushed and u get some clarification. So if you look at 3A so all the information is coming from League of Minnesota Cities and this is if they don't have a city administrator. Is that a correct statement? It's a combined clerk. You got CAO. >> Yeah. And so I called it the chief administrative officer for the city because it's just the head of government, you know, that can be a city administrator or a city clerk. And so I just called it CEO. >> So you're comparing there similar populations and if they whatever their top leader is, whatever whether it be clerk or something else >> and some of these examples down further, they do have city administrators like Columbus for example. Okay. Now, you're talking in 3B at this point, >> correct? Yep. >> And so, yeah, this this report, this memo, it's not perfectly laid out. Again, I was a little rushed. And I don't mean to impose my my thoughts or will on anyone. I just I thought I'd take the initiative to do this. You know, in doing this, I looked at some other cities and how they determine salaries for their um administrators or clerks, and they do similar type reports, except they have consultants do it. And so, um, you know, we could go out and spend a couple grand on that. >> I don't want to do that. >> Neither do I. So, that was why I tried to at least make an effort to do my best here. Um, but yeah, so my my conclusion I guess is I think for the type of position that Natalie's in, uh, a a reasonable range would be 105 to 125. And my, you know, in my conclusion at the end, you'll see I explained I I don't think Natalie merits being put at the top of that scale. She doesn't have a college degree and she doesn't have a long history in the city uh government and city you know government accounting and financing which is different than private business but she does have relevant experience and she is doing a good job. So I also don't think she should be at the bottom of that range. Um so those are my thoughts. That's my conclusion. Not saying I'm right but that's what I I came up with. Can I uh just ask a couple questions? One of the things that was stated was Now then doesn't have like uh uh public liquor store. Um they don't have a police department. Out of all the some of these other ones in 3B, you've got some comparisons, but I think Columbus, if you're asking what is the most comparable? >> Yeah, maybe one or two. >> I think Columbus is actually the most comparable. They're also in an NOA County. They're very similar population, very similar spread out. Um they have volunteer fire department. They use a NOA County Sheriff. They have The only difference is they have very very limited water and sewer in a small section of the city. So that's a little different than us. But aside from that one piece, they are I mean pretty comparable. I guess the other distinctive thing about them is they have Running Aces Horset Track and Casino, which you know increases their tax base. >> Um Yeah. So >> can we have one of them, please? >> Yeah. and and you can see they went with a city administrator and that salary is about uh 140. Um, Credit River is also a very comparable uh city. They started out I think as a township and they just became a city and they are um little higher in population than us, a little less spread out but you know similar level of services and again you know they have a city administrator and they also have a separate city clerk. Um, but the city administrator's salary is 130. Um, Greenfield is also, you know, I mean, they're all fairly comparable. I mean, every one of them has something you could pick out and say, well, that's not like now, but there is no perfect. Go ahead. >> One of the some of the one of the questions I would have though, so let let's take Credit River as an example. What is the city administrator within the city of Credit River? Do they also have a um treasurer have to employ a contract treasurer like now then does or does that person budget in house within the city? I I think uh that pertinent question some questions that we need to ask is what are >> Yeah. And I would uh say that, you know, it really doesn't matter if they're called city administrator, city clerk. If they're that head of the government, the responsibilities are all pretty much the same. The only, you know, real big differences are if you have some big city with a bunch of services and all of a sudden you're, you know, running a police department or this or that. But as far as, you know, just day-to-day stuff in the city, I I think I mean I think that the the scope of their job are all pretty similar. So my question was very specific though. >> Do they have to hire now then have employs a contract treasurer really manage the budget report to the council and and report? Does the city administrator some there there are a lot of city administrators that have that finance experience? They manage that themselves. I I don't know. I I don't know every detail of each one of these cities. >> I don't think we have any specifics on on specifically on that. >> So, I think I think that's a valid question though that that what are they using to to determine that salary level. >> Yeah. I mean, that's a fair point and I I would suspect that that person in Credit River as a city administrator with that higher salary probably has a college degree. So, they might have some more of that experience. And again, you know, that's why, you know, Natalie's salary would not be up there. But yeah, I mean, they're all different. I don't have every piece of data on these cities. That's a good question. It's a fair question, but you know, I don't know. There is a lot to look at, a lot to compile. >> Just a couple things. So, we're looking at this to try to sol solidify the budget. Well, we haven't even hit budget cycle yet. So, we don't to me it means we don't have to answer this question tonight. We don't have to vote on this one way or the other. So, I think that's the first thing to talk about. The second thing is what is current wages that we're currently paying. >> We're paying $45 an hour. >> So, I think that's an important starting point to say here's where we're at. >> We know where the last city administrator somewhere around 118,000. We know that we chose as a council to say we don't need a city administrator because we have less in the city of Neland and we can run with uh our deputy clerk. And the question is, she's currently getting paid 93 and that was a bump up from where she was at. So what would be a fair salary? And and I think what council member Swinson brought together is his overall recommendation between 105 and 125. Uh that's his recommendation. So we can look at it. If we have questions, we can we can table this one tonight and come back. Now Natalie probably wants an answer to it, but I I don't think we need to as an organization. If we if we have bench points and data uh benchmarks or data points that we need, we don't have to make the decision. >> Council Rainbow, go ahead. >> Um well, we start our budget process on Wednesday the 23rd. >> So we should have an idea of what >> that's the next meeting we have is the >> our first meeting on the budget. >> Okay. Um, so I I think it's smart of us to talk about it. If we are missing some information, let's try to get that information by prior to the 23rd. So we have >> Could it be the first thing we vote on on the 23rd? If that's the case, >> that that could be it. Yes. Um, but I think it's in to be respectful to Natalie, um, she should know, um, what council is thinking, um, that council wants that we offer an employment agreement with dollar amounts in there. Um, and we do that on the 23rd so that when we start with our budget, we have that. >> If we can make the decision tonight, great. So, so the question would be um council member Glazer asked about um whether the other municipalities have either this it so I'm going to paraphrase and maybe add something they is the city administrator the one doing the actual budget or do they contract out as in we we do contract a portion of ours out but Natalie on a day-to-day basis deals with the budget and she's presenting numbers to Lori. Lori isn't just taking them out there. Natalie is supplying information to Lori or do they have a treasure? Do they have an internal treasurer that is responsible for the overall budget with the administrator? Questions on the issue of pay her a dollar an hourly rate and it varies based on what um assistance Natalie needs and what questions um council imposes on her and how many meetings we ask her to be at >> we should have like an average over >> and if Dan's got the budget up he can get the last couple years >> and I think that would be helpful because I think it ties back to council member Glazer's question of hey if they have this what what are we paying because there could be a direct deduction from that >> about 25 >> I was I I was going to guess 30 so >> okay So, it's not huge, but it's a substantial enough to know and use the comparison to just exactly what uh what was the name of center city. Is that what you guys called it? >> Credit River. >> Credit River. I'm sorry. Credit River. >> Okay. Council member Ryan, go ahead. >> That wasn't my question. My question was also do do they have a managed mun that they're >> municipal liquor store and or municipal cannabis dispensary because >> I don't think credit river has either of those things. I think their profile as far as services and stuff to administer is pretty similar to us. I did pull up their website. >> Councilman wanted to pull up their website. I was just going to say you might be able to answer that question. I just know that that was the dis part of the discussion that Natalie went that I as I recall Natalie brought up that when she was talking at the clerk conference that that whether they or not had a managed MUN was part of the discussion. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And it's an important piece because we have less responsibility about them. We've established that >> and that's why I've I've tried to pick out the cities with minimal services because it's you know you throw something in there you're managing another 10 people all of a sudden or more and that becomes a bigger job. But I I did pull up Credit River. Looks like they have a city administrator. Uh, and then they also have a city clerk who's responsible for elections, official records. Doesn't say who the treasurer is probably. Yeah. And I again, I can't say for certain. I haven't, you know, called these cities or done exhaustive research. So, it's possible I have a mistake in here. But I, you know, again, the goal was to find the most comparable cities. And I think for the most part, the people who had these governments, um, these cities, I mean, the the scope of what they do is is pretty similar to what Natalie would do, but spot on. >> You could say generally similar and probably get away with it. I don't know if pretty similar is, but generally they got similar duties. They could have more, they could have less. They may have an outside consultant like we do. >> All right. Is there a recommendation from any any one of your three? I know council member Swinson just brought up he said the 105 to uh >> 125 >> 125 range. Any other recommendations? Do we have to change our salary? Let me ask that question. I think just from researching that, you know, if it was 93,000, that seems like a fair wage for a city clerk in a city where there's also a city administrator. That's sort of, you know, the the range on that was, you know, maybe 70 to 90. >> I think probably similar to what it was before we gave her the raise. >> What's that? >> Before we give her the raise, because we just gave her a raise for interimm duties. She was probably right in that range. Well, she Yeah, I mean, she was a deputy clerk before that, though. But, um, yeah, so I think that's a fair wage for a city clerk that doesn't had a government. I think it's on the low end for a city where she, you know, that position does have the government. And then I I think a additional factor here is our proximity to the metro because our wages are naturally higher. It just is what it is. And so some of these outstate cities which are pretty comparable to us, they're lacking in that regard because you know wages and you know 100 miles outside of the cities are a little bit lower than they are here cost of living. Um but yeah, so I in my opinion I you know I think 93 and keeping her at that would be low. Um the other >> it's too low given the the amount of responsibility you're saying comparing to other cities. >> Yeah. and and the amount of work. I know Natalie's making efforts right now to reduce or minimize the amount of overtime she's working. And I know she would be working more if she could because there's additional stuff she wants to get to. And once she gets switched over to salary, she no longer has that concern about, you know, racking up a big overtime tab. And I think she will put in the hours and, you know, I think she deserves to be paid commensurate with that. Council member Rainbow, go ahead. >> I I agree with Council Member Swinson. Um Natalie, you know, how many years ago came into this without having any background whatsoever, thought it was going to be a temporary job. And she has um my opinion um shown herself to be a very smart, capable person, very dependable, very conscientious. And um I believe that will continue is that's just Natalie's nature has learned a tremendous amount on how government works and that's not an easy task. Um but she's done a good job. she's brought forward things where we're lacking on um has made recommendations to make changes and I think it'd be smart to offer her an employment agreement and um I would with council member Swenson's um suggestion of 105 to 125 I would I would go 115 it would be >> Go ahead council member Glazer Mr. I I think because for me I'm I think I'm okay with the range. Um my preference would be to start at the bottom of the range. There's room to grow. There's um some of the qualifications that we were looking for as far as um formal education isn't there. Um years of leadership experience. For instance, Mr. ler. I don't know how many a couple decades of leadership experience coming from the gas company. So, and 115 would put her, you know, just $3,000 under what we would have been paying. So, uh my I would advocate um okay with the range. I would I would start at the 105 point >> grow from there. >> Can we hit Council Member Ryan next? Oh yeah, >> I was just going to um kind of follow up on council member Glazer where umically because I know Natalie as an incentive as um that the salary could be adjusted once that clerk training is finished was was what I was thinking would be starting small the yes some outstates um greater Minnesota cities have smaller salaries other um greater Minnesota cities have higher salaries that all comes out Um, >> Johnson, go ahead. >> Um, yeah, I so I would first like to say I think Natalie does a great job. So, what I'm about to say isn't saying, you know, she's just what we have. But, you know, in looking at the applicants that we had when we had the city administrator posted for I, you know, nothing sticks out in my memory as particularly impressive or even, you know, worth interviewing. And so, you know, I'm not saying that um, you know, we're just like begrudgingly taking Natalie. I think she legitimately does a good job and she's she's very good at what she does. And I I think I I would like to acknowledge her experience and I guess what she has done for the city over the past six months and also frankly, you know, sort of taking one for the team and killing the city administrator surge. That was sort of a a big move on her part. I feel like let me ask you guys, would you feel comfortable doing 110? Just let me can I before you ask that question, I'd like to just speak because I haven't got a chance to. So looking at it, um your research states that she's underpaid for the services she's providing given the general consensus. So I think you've got agreement on the pay range. So that's good. I also come in I I'm right there. Right smack dab 105. And and I'm not trying to negotiate down. And what I'm trying to do is say, all right, it's knowledge, skills, and ability for the pay. Ellie has done a good job. There's no doubt about it. She's a hard worker, but take it all in in context here. We don't have a municipal liquor store. We don't have this. So that's why we discontinued the search. So if I stay right there, our last search was what 125. What what did we say we were going to pay? >> Upper limit of 140. I don't remember what the >> 115. >> Yeah, we had we had a rate. So it's somewhere around 125. It might have been 130. So the whole goal of discontinuing that search and saying, "Hey, we can manage with what we got is to reduce that that piece right there. She's taking responsibility. It's giving now if we go from 93 to 105, it's a $12,000 increase. It shifts her over to salary." So I think it meets all intents and I would support that. So I I don't want to go to 110 or 115 because we're very quickly back up to where we were at and this is the whole goal. I believe it's a fair compensation package and that's where I Okay, that was my point. Can I make one more pitch to the 110? Absolutely. All right. You made your pitch. >> So, you know, I uh you guys said Scott his salary was was it going to be 118 for 2025 or was it 118 for 2024? 110 for It was 50. It came to $53 an hour for 2024, which is $110,000. >> Oh, really? All right. And it was going >> number come from >> I don't I don't know. That was 2024 and he was going to get a raise in 2025. But >> from my research, even that salary is extremely low for a city administrator. >> Four. That's a number that was given. >> Yeah. And so I what I'm looking at here, I I don't so much want to look at how much of a raise is this for Natalie and use that as a benchmark. I want to say if Natalie disappeared and we had to go find someone, are we going to hire someone as good as Natalie at 105? I mean 110 isn't going to make a world of difference. It's not that huge of a jump, but I think it's more attractive. It's more competitive. I think it it tells the world we mean business and that we're serious about running a effective city here and keeping our people. Um, so yeah, I mean I I I would come off the 115. I would ask you guys to consider 110, but >> can I ask um Council Member Glazer, what did you say that Mr. Mr. Laner's salary was supposed to be in 2024. >> Well, this was this goes back to conversations with Mr. Boils and he was at it was $110,000 I believe for 20 >> and other than cost of living which all employees receive, Mr. Laner hadn't received a raise to my knowledge because council never did any appraise uh per performance reviews on him which were required in order to receive an increase in salary. I and I I don't know. I I don't remember what we hired him at and what we ended him at, but if it was C, it would be a cost of living because we never approved council never approved a salary increase for him. >> Yeah, that that number came from conversations with Mr. Boils when we were in the process of um putting together the search for the city. >> I I I wish I would know what he started at. Um, >> Council Brian, do you have the number by chance? I know you're he's >> Well, the the challenge is the budget. It's all clumped together, but there was a spreadsheet. There's a spreadsheet that broke it out by employee, but I am confident that Mr. I don't have the spreadsheet right now, but I'm pretty sure that there were salary adjustments that were included on that spreadsheet. Mr. Mayor, go ahead. >> And council member Brian could be correct. I I just don't ever remember doing the the performance review which was performance >> and that's where that's where increases were um >> salary adjustments made >> based on to my recollection was cost of living. But the other thing I want to talk about is council member Brian's um bringing up the the clerk training through the league and the other the other the finance group that she goes to um that we include something in the contract that says at completion of second year, third year, fourth year there increase based on completion of that those those am I correct in That's >> I'm saying that I'm saying that should be in my opinion that should at least be factored in that right now. Um that's one thing I don't know about these other positions. Has their clerk gone through all full all the training or not? But I'm just hypothesizing that I know Natalie's been through one year. So so um course hasn't been officially completed. So I would think that would can be something that that something another thing that could be factored into your recommendation on that would be to set a dollar amount or are you saying that training has to be completed for her to maintain her position? I would think at the at the at the conclusion of the benchmarks or milestones of that program that she would eligible for an increase >> after the second one or after the third one >> I would say well she's redone one we've missed that so it would be the second and the third I don't think it's a four-year program so >> and I would I disagree with Councilwoman Rainville. Um I maybe the same concern or slightly different. I I would hate to see a situation where she gets pegged at 105 because of the experience she has now and then all she gets going forward or cost of living adjustments and not recognition for advancing in her abilities. >> We have the bus the ability as council to adjust pay ranges as necessary. So it's we're setting it for right now. Um, I mean, we have the ability to set or change that. >> Well, and and I get that, but in reality, you know, a year from now, are we going to sit down and, you know, hammer out a a five grand, 10 grand raise? It just seems like one of those issues. I mean, this issue took us months to get on the calendar. I don't know. I just I I don't want it I don't want it to get missed and forgotten and this set her salary forever, you know? And again, I I think even as it stands now, I think she merits 110. So, I'm not saying 110 based on some future thing. I think she merits 110. But I'm, like I said, I >> you could do a combination of that. Just say, "Hey, if we move it to 110, she completes her training, everything's good, and then we're back on steady state cost of living raises after that. >> Then you don't throw in any additional incentives, which I don't know how we're going to control or do or monitor." And that's what I want to be careful with is whatever we implement, we need to be able to monitor and be done. Make it easy. So, we just do a salary. I know we can figure that one out. But if we start throwing in other curve balls, I'd be concerned about it. >> Start at 105 and then we can I'm fine with that piece right there. But that means at budget time we got to remember that where there's additional pieces in there. >> Can you say that one more time, Dan? Sorry. >> Just like any anyone else if there's that been done yet? Yes. Okay, great. Let's factor that into compensation. Oh, we didn't. We weren't able to get it done yet. All right. Well, let's take >> and I you know I think one thing I've heard from Natalie is that she wants feedback. She wants guidance. She doesn't want to be hanging out here in the wind and wondering how she's doing and so I think that would fit in with with feedback and guidance. Maybe we put something on the calendar for 6 months or a year and >> but we have we have a review coming up for her. Correct. >> Mr. Go ahead. The employment agreement get start has a starting salary um and then um that there will be a review after six months and the employer agrees to increase the employee salary to blank after that satisfactory and successful six months performance review. So, if we start out at 105 and and in six months um and the date in here has got August 1st 25. That would not be correct if we're just going >> that that's one piece I was looking at. I think it said August. >> Yeah. >> So, it's been long on the >> So, there's no mandate. We don't have to increase her salary after six months. >> No, we don't have >> Well, then somebody has to make a move to take that out. >> So, I think there's a couple pieces. one, there's no increase that has to happen or doesn't have to happen. It's it's whatever the council's discretion is. Now, we have to do a review for her. We have to figure out that process and to make sure that it happens. And then I think the council, if you want to give a raise, then you would talk about a raise at that time. But there's no mandate on it. No, I think the only mandate, it's not even a mandate, but the cost of living is the one that >> the mandate that where it best needs to go. >> Council, we determined that. >> Anything else that needs to be updated on this? And then we can go through a couple votes. One on the salary and then one on the on the description. Um, we also have a employment contract in here and one of the pieces in there, I don't know if you guys are okay with it or not. >> Which page is that one on? >> Um, that was in the packet. That's I don't know. >> That's a whole another one there. >> That's the one you were looking at. The employment contract starting on page 25 under salary. It's got this uh conducted by employee by one August. So it should be there should be some type of benchmark 6 months after accepting this position. So say it happens in August. So we'd be looking out to what February 2026 this the first review. How about anybody else who calculated that would be one update Glazer if you have not read that that's going to be an important one to read. >> So I I am reading it right now. So Mr. Mayor, my my preference would be that, you know, while all employees there uh there's going to be a cost of living adjustment in in January of 2026, that any merit inc any merit increase be tied to not the next 6 months of employment, but going back to complete successfully completing the so You state that one more time, please. >> Well, this this contract the contract gets gets away from the conversation we were just having about any type of merit increase being um considered after completion of um the city clerk training through the League of Min. So, this the contract obligates us to a meritorious raise on top of cost of living raise regardless of training. and it's just just performance. So, >> you'd like that added in there of training. >> It a meritorious increase is going to be tied to um a completion of city clerk training. >> Council member Rainbow, go ahead. >> I guess I want like clarification on that, Council Member Glazer. So, are you saying that there's no merit increase until the complete the other two two sessions are completed, which would mean there'd be no merit increase for two years? So do in within the city and I think I think employees got the raise that they got last year was was larger than the cost of living. >> It was basically a cost of living raise but if you were to compare that to inflation it was slightly higher than inflation. So and and mo most in my experience in working in the corporate world um you know increases in pay came from increases in responsibility and you know a new job description maybe moving into a supervisory role management role which is and and we are giving that increase from the 93,000 to 105 so $12,000 a year. Um so I I'm to me the next meritorious increase would be tied to completion of the city not after not a performance just a strictly a performance review after 6 months um in the role. We just make sure we got the terms merit and cost of living. Uh, and I think we're calling them two separate things. >> They are separate. >> Okay. So, just make sure. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. So again, I what I'm hearing and maybe I'm not hearing it correctly is council member Glazer saying we start her at this salary and at the completion of 2 years down the road of the LMC classes, that's the next time we look at a merit increase. What if in the meantime we do a performance review and she's taken over more of the functions that Lori Joerger does or there is something different within the city and and we've had to she's had to take on additional responsibilities. >> Can't we address that when when that arises? >> Right. So, can we just strike out this right here? If just I'm sorry, Council Member Rainbow, but if we took where it says the employer agrees to increase employee salary to blank after satisfactory and uh successful six-month performance evaluation, what if that was just struck out? We're going to do the performance evaluation and again, we're going to meet as a council to state that, hey, she's doing a good job. We think she deserves this. Oh, she's doing an okay job. We don't want to do anything. That's our decision at that point. I don't need to put anything in a contract to say she's going to get set amount after six months. I I don't think that's that's not normal in a contract. >> I agree with you. I I think tying it to two years out to completion of training is too long. And I don't think we necessarily need to set it at 6 months or a year either. I mean, I think we could just sort of wing it and >> we can talk about it and say, "Hey, we're comfortable. We're not comfortable. What do we want to do?" I I guess I I do agree with Mary in the sense that I do think two years is too long because even after a year without completing the training, she will have then, you know, a year and a half under her belt heading a city and she theoretically could go apply for a different job at a different city and get paid more. So that year of of on the job training is is worth something. So I wouldn't want to wait. >> But I think that's where cost of living comes in. >> Well, that's different. That's different. See, see that's see we see we come from we come from the corporate world where the where those meritorious raises aren't very common. >> Well, and that's why I was >> and the meritorious raises the $12,000 a year that that we're we're going from 93,000 to 105,000. But again, I'm not tying it to her prior wage. I'm looking at the state as a whole. What does a city clerk with her level of experience get paid? >> We can come back as a group and say, "All right, she's completed one year. Do we believe that she's uh eligible for a merit? We can have that conversation at any time. >> And can I just point one other thing out? My concern that I stated earlier about tying her to 105 and only getting cost of living going forward that the corporate world over here, it sort of sounds like that's the way it's leaning. That meritorious raises are very difficult to give out. >> They are difficult. >> Well, but I I think a couple, you know, a year or two of experience heading a city government, I I think that deserves a merit raise. So, so we're talking about so when when when I look at the when I look at the corporate world and and I'm going to use Liy Medical as an example. Lei manufactures widgets and they sell them and they create they create revenue. City of Now then is reliant on the tax dollars of the residents of the city of Now then. And we're asking the residents to pay for all kinds of things right now. And and our city, contrary to what you were saying, our city isn't really growing. And so we have we have a almost almost stagnant population that we're going to continue to have to ask more money. Ask them for more money. So, I I don't think I don't think we're being unfair in in offering a salary of $105,000 a year with a you know, a cost of living increase um in in January and w with the potential for a larger increase when League of Minnesota City's clerk training is completed in two years. >> There can be a proposal after one year that you bring it to the table and say, "Hey, she's completed one year. I believe she's eligible for mayor. We can talk about it at that point, >> but I don't want to put a dollar amount in here. No, >> neither do I. >> That that that we're going to guarantee in six months based on a performance review. >> Actually, I think she struck it out of hers and per my recommendation on that. So, I think if you look at salary, I I think we can get agreement alignment on 105 right now. I don't know that we're going to get to 110. So, we have three things going here. One is the the wage. Should we vote on the wage first and then go into uh the motion and then go into the employers agreement? Is that how you recommend going to this? >> Sure. >> Would that work? All right. So, if we can take the wage, wage is up first. Any other discussion on that or are we ready to vote? >> I need a motion from somebody, though. Mr. >> Mayor, >> I'll make a motion to um fix the salary for our as part of the >> I will second your motion. Okay. Any other discussion on Okay. All those in favor um per the motion from Council Member O'Brien for a wage of 105,000. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. >> We have two nays. Motion carries. Okay. So 105. We just set the wage. Next one. We need to go through the job description employers agreement. >> Well, were we going to wait on the job description for her too with the other job descriptions? can or do you want to hit that right now? >> I would appreciate that. >> Done. >> Should we do the employer agreement though? >> Yes, that needs to be done so we can get it to council member. The one big thing in here that I I saw maybe could have some disagreement is the the severance for termination 6 months. And I at first that struck me as a lot, but then I actually looked and most city heads, you know, whether it's a clerk or an administrator, they do have some severance and a lot of them are 6 months, some of them were 3 months. Um, so it's a thing in city government. I also read that and was a little bit in shock, but I also remember there was a key thing that Mr. Laner told me. He said because when councils turn over, they have the ability to cut the administrator if they don't like them. So that's where that severance piece is tied in. Uh I was a little bit shocked when I first read that, but that's the reason why the severance is in there. Now the question is, is 3 months and 6 months the right terms? I've never written one of these. Um I've only read one other one. So, if you guys had experience from that, I would love to hear. >> Well, I didn't exhaustively look, but I've I saw at least at least two or three other contracts for people like this with 6 months in there, and I saw at least one with 3 months. I didn't see any with none. Um, so again, I don't have direct experience, but from my research, it seems 6 months is not an unreasonable thing to do. Council member Brian, did you >> There was not one in a previous contract had by the city. There there's nothing there's no, as I understand, and I could be wrong, there's no state statute that says we have to have one. >> I don't know that there's a state statute, but like Mr. Ler had this written in his. >> No, he did not. >> Oh, he didn't. Okay. I maybe that's what he he failed to put it in there and he told me about it. Maybe that's what it was. >> Okay. >> So, we don't have, as I understand it, we I mean, we don't have to include a it's in here or not. >> Well, we don't have to pay a fair wage or any of that other stuff. We don't have to provide health insurance >> benefit that we're providing. >> But I think it's reasonable in light of Laner's explanation and and yours, mayor. I I think it's a fair point. And again, after having looked, it's not I mean, it's not only not uncommon, I think it would it is actually common to have. So, once again, I I I'm I'm going to I'm going to throw myself at the mercy of the council. I did not have a chance to review it and I was expecting to come to a meeting to to address fire truck. So, I would appreci I I I typically and and I I apologize because I typically come prepared to meetings because I do. So, I would appreciate if we could if we could table this again until the I think it's the 23rd when we come to address the budget. Um and and we could probably have an updated one of these at that point. >> Yeah. >> With a couple things. One, get rid of that August 1st date, put it at February 2026. uh and strike that line where the employer agrees to pay a certain amount more. I think that needs to be struck. Um termination benefits good point of discussion and gives it a little time for research. Um >> what was the date on the the strike? August make it January February >> or 6 months from from sign acceptance. >> There you go. 6 months. That'd be fine too. I just put February. But yes, >> so we could do that. And then >> I I I'm okay with shelfing this tonight. The biggest thing was the wage. We had to work through that. We've got agreement on Well, I don't say we we've got a majority. We didn't get agreement. >> Okay. Mr. Mayor, >> council member. >> I I do want though that we that under that salary um I I am not comfortable in any fashion of making her wait two years. If that's how we're going to treat our employees, we will have no employees. And so I think it's important that we document in this agreement that we will do yearly reviews and at that yearly review >> it in there correct that we're doing yearly reviews. >> Okay. And let me so let me finish. So that we it's documented. We do yearly reviews and that advances in their knowledge of the job or assuming a different additional responsibilities are included in that review and that merit increases are are again I I I'm not interested in waiting two years to give her a cost uh a merit increase um cost of I work for the government. We got merit or union contract raises and we got cost of living. There was no question. So >> never worked for the government. I I used I when I was when I was a lot younger and starting out my career, I got merit increases because I did >> worked in that, you know, and I was and I was an excellent employee at it, you know, I'll just use the last, you know, from the time I came to Minnesota. Um and typically our managers they get they get a pool of dollars. >> Typically it's tied to the to the um consumer price index and they can those managers and and possibly the mayor is is in a similar position you know in in how he allocates you know increases annually. passed them out today. M matter of fact, >> merit increases, you know, to me the fact that other governments, government agencies do it doesn't mean that we have to do it. >> But are we council member Glazer, then are you telling me that are you saying that if an employee works hard, is successful, is um does well for the for the city that that isn't to be looked at and they don't get merit increases. So, so typically a ju a job has a pay range that that company and companies they go out and they do research not unlike what council member Swinson has has done this evening and and typically those pay ranges there's there's a lot of times the way that they structure them is it's very difficult to get past them even get past the midpoint and so meritorious meritorious raises are not maybe outside of government are not very common. >> That's why nobody works for the same employer for longer than two years in the private sector these days. >> But you know, you can't just you can't just keep increasing salaries and increasing salaries. >> And council member Glazer, we're not obligated to, but we should at least address it in a contract that that gives something for the employee to look forward to. If you give me in a contract that says in two years we'll talk to you, why would I sign it? So, so we >> I think we can solve this whole thing very quickly. So, we can review every year and if the duties and responsibilities of the individual are outside of the pay range, we have the ability to adjust it. If the duties and responsibilities are in the pay range, we can vote on it and say, do we give something additional? We'll vote on it as a group. We don't need it in anything. All we need is an RCA to say, hey, we should evaluate Natalie's wage. And if she's in there, great. I think it should be clear as to what what we're looking for in if we choose to do a merit increase. I I think that needs to be clear because Natalie needs clear direction on that. >> Um so I I'm not going to belabor it, but that's >> we're not even voting on anything else. >> No, we're not. Um but just think about that as an employee. How do we want to be seen as treating our employees? We treat our employees very well. >> Okay. And that's good and and there's and that's important to do so that we don't lose them. Um so we've talked about that. So the other thing is under termination of benefits on 26. The last bullet point um is if the employee voluntarily voluntarily resigns his or her position that they give the employer 2 weeks 14 days advanced notice. I I would like to see that a longer period. What are the 30 days? >> And and and that would be working days. Um because if this employee walks out after 14 days, there's going to be a lot of stuff that you know them there longer than that. Now, if if it's a hostile and I I shouldn't have used that word. I'm sorry. But if it's, you know, if the employer if the employee has to leave town, you know, their family moves, the the other half of the the the relationship gets a job and they're moving, you talk about that. But I just think 14 days because that includes Saturdays and Sundays. So, you get two weeks. I think we should look at that being a >> make it 30 calendar days. I would be fine with that. >> And typically for somebody who's treasurer or administrator, whatever the title happens to be, it is 30 days. >> Scott Lanners was 30 days. >> We didn't but we didn't get 30 days of work out of them. But >> that's your opinion. >> I'm a title. >> He chose to use PTO as part of his 30 days and we we were okay with that. >> Times that he used it. Yes. So, so I just think we need to look at it in addressing a longer period of time though. That's my only that was what >> recommendation. We can rewrite that and debate that on the next time we come. Anything else for tonight? Council member Brian, >> your update. >> Motion to adjurnn, Mr. Mayor. >> All right. Second meeting adjourned. Microphone's off everybody. And I will go the video.