Well, everybody ready? >> All right, we'll call the meeting to order. Today's the 23rd of July. We'll start off with the Pledge of Allegiance, please. Algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Right. Since uh Natalie's gone tonight or Miss Johnson's gone tonight, I'll do roll call. So, starting with myself, I'm here. Um Council Member Bryant >> here. Council member Glazer >> here. Council member Rainville >> present. >> Council member Swanson Swanson >> here. >> Uh so we also have um fire chief Miller >> here. >> And we have financial consultant Jerger. >> He is here also. Then also we have financial assistant. >> All right. So we have everybody present. Okay. Okay. So, the next thing on the list is to approve the agenda. >> Council member Bryant. >> Motion to approve the agenda as presented. >> Second. >> We already have a second. Any discussion? >> Vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion carries. Agenda is approved. All right. We'll go right down to number two, which is the uh claims for payment due uh the 12th of August. Mr. Mayor, >> make a motion to approve the prior to August 12th. Council member Bryant. Is there anybody want to second that? >> Second. >> Second from Council Member Rainville. I'll move to vote or any discussion. >> No discussion. Move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> All right. So, now we're going to move on to the reason we're here tonight, which is the 2026 budget. It'll be le uh led by financial consultant Jagger. So, I will turn the mic over to her. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mary, members of the council, uh included in your packet tonight was a lot of summary um preparations for the 2026 budget. This is a proposed budget that staff and myself have have put together um using utilizing the CIP that we did and the equipment replacement plan, the capital improvement plan and the equipment replacement plan. And then some other um things that we look at when we're doing it, we look at what our the expenditures are during the 25 um year to date through June. And we also look at historical information from 2023 and 2024 to determine um the best budgets going forward in in 2026. So that is what is in your packet. Um just some some a few brief things to highlight. One is uh to continue using the $50,000 from gambling proceeds that are um we don't get 50,000 a year, but we do have some fund balance in there that we're going to use plus the gambling proceeds from from 2025 to continue helping to offset the sheriff costs. Those are um legitimate uh uses of the gambling um proceeds that we get. Uh the general fund levy increase as proposed is only $22,55 um and we were util utilizing some fund balance to pay for some operations. We're utilizing um currently about $102,000 of fund balance for operating costs, but the rest of the fund balance use is for transfers out of the general fund into other funds like capital and equipment and um debt service and turnout gear. So, um, the city has a very healthy general fund balance, and that's why I'm proposing that you use some of your fund balance in 2026 to help keep the the levy and and property taxes a little lower than than um they should be, but you have a very um healthy fund balance where you can utilize those funds um in 2026. Um there was a 5% merit increase being proposed in in the uh the budget and there's also a 10% increase in insurance costs health insurance employees. So if we want to move on I I am sharing my screen have to make it bigger. So, this is a uh a spreadsheet that actually Dan um council member Danson sent me from another um city and I thought, well, this is a really way to look at the levy. It really shows you, you know, on the left hand side of the screen shows you what the actual expenditures are for those departments. And then on the right hand side of the screen, it shows you what it costs the property taxpayers in now then um via the levy to run those departments. And so as you can see the the the most expensive departments or uses that you have are the sheriff and then also public works and the office administration and that's generally you know all of your operations that that are that are occurring. >> May I ask at this time what what was the city that we that was >> it was Cottage Grove >> that we're comparing to >> I'm not comparing a city. I was just utilizing what they had shown >> just the format >> just the format that they used. So >> all the information >> Yes, it's all from us. Yes. >> So it's it's um but I thought it was a unique way to look at how your levy is being used. So you can see and the reason why there's a difference between the expenditure amount and the the levy amount is that there are um aids that the fire department gets, you know, and and so that would reduce their overall cost or cost of levy. Um there's also u a general aid that we we get from the u from the transportation allocation fund or whatever that is. and that and so I take those aids and those charges for services and I spread those across the various departments depending on what what they are. So anyway, that's a nutshell. It's kind of a different way to look at how your levy is being used questions regarding this page or not. Mayor Council >> to to Miss Jagger, one of the things we've done in the past and I understand you this is a new format, >> but on the um bonds, >> would we add in when they end? And I know I think it was council member Glazer asked when they because that's just as if you see that you know, okay, well, we have this one for this many years or this is the last year of it. >> So, if we could add that into it, that would be helpful to me. I don't know about anybody else. >> And the and the amount left to pay on it. >> Okay. >> And then would this be emailed out to us possibly tomorrow? >> Did we get this? >> Yes, >> we got this in your packet. >> I think it's page five numbered. >> Okay. >> And my number is page two. I numbered it too, but there's a >> at the top is the page five >> because it's the full council package. >> Pull that up. So I'm like three pages off. >> Yeah, >> but that that's good recommendations understanding. >> And we did maybe just for your information I did email that information out. Um the 2019 they end in 20 2030 with the final principal payment in 2031 and then 2021 ends in 2031 with the final principal payment being in 2032. So they're generally speaking now then just does 10-year bond issues. They've never from that. Um, >> yes. And there is you can do a 20-year, but your special assessments are only 10 years. And so go with whatever your road improvement projects are going to be. >> Yep. >> We can we can probably do that. >> Could we also see the interest rates on those? That varies depending on >> Yep. And the interest rates are in um the uh comprehensive annual financial or your annual financial report in the notes in there reference to look for those. That's where they're at. >> So could you just take the the example just the first song >> started in 2019? budget. We did $14. >> That's the principal and interest. That's what that is. >> So that's our payment amount each year. >> Yes. Very similar but not exact. >> Got it. >> Y >> is the number. >> Yeah. And then the the one on the right hand side is the levy for those bond issues. And so what helps pay off the road improvement bonds is also the special assessments that you get. forms of two sources of um income in their in the debt service. It's the special assessments and the levy general >> talked about the four major four major. Anything else we should look at? And this what uh the next page just reflects changes only. So it doesn't reflect total budget. It just reflects a change from the 25 budget to the 26 budget. And that's that's what these numbers reflect. So you can see and I've tried to put in um why there's changes you know for your information without going into a lot of detail you know just general overview that's what's what's happening here questions uh regarding summary sheet >> so I amount of revenue Right. >> But this is a big negative revenue coming in. But you know usually we want this one >> right >> and that was we received projections um from the state and from others saying what we were going to get in 24 and we did >> and this part Mr. Mayor, members of council, this is um particularly uh for the transportation ad what you're getting from mind for deliveries. I guess they have a tax on deliver. So they're collecting it and then they're distributing it to the >> small cities for small city aid >> taxes on any >> $100. Is >> that what it is? >> I don't know what I don't know what the >> percentage is. >> Yeah, I don't know either what that's where it's coming from. So it was less than what they projected. We had we had budgeted I think 90ome,000 in 2025 and we're only getting 44. So we're getting like half of what we thought we were going to get going forward. It is increasing in 26 to 74,000 but it's not nearly what we thought it was going to be. >> Possible to attribute that to the fact that people aren't sheltering in place anymore and and not as many delivery trucks are as 2020 and 2021. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Maro, go ahead. >> I think it was just we had bad numbers. I think that's I mean there are some I'm sure that um you know order at $99.95 so they don't get it's a 50 sir charge but um more just bad numbers. >> Can I ask is it just a projection from the state on what we get and then whatever it comes out that's what they give you. Is that how that >> uh Mr. Mayor and uh members of the council? No, they actually I can go you can go to the website in on MDOT and ask for the transportation advancement and they have the 25 and the 26 numbers. They don't have 27 obviously, but but they're basing it on what they've collected in historically and so they're using those numbers >> historical data to project for, but it may or may not be accurate at all. >> I think Oh yeah, the 26 is accurate and so is the 25. >> Okay. We just didn't have those projections before and now we do. >> That's the change. So, we think it will be accurate. >> Yeah, I think yes. >> Before they were just pulling numbers from the sky and now they're more information. Yeah. >> Council member, go ahead. >> Um, also too is because it's intergovernmental, it can be taken away at the drop of a hat. So, >> so it it's not promised is what we're saying. saying yes, but whoever um whatever the legisl legislation legislature chooses to do >> used to get local government aid, they changed the formula. We don't get that anymore. >> We want to be careful on projecting this amount of money. We may not get any of it. And so just don't depend on it. >> But depend on it for 26. Yeah, >> it is already on their website that we're they're giving it out for 26, >> but the legislator has already approved it. >> So, we can count on Okay, thank you. >> for 26. >> Don't count on but exception is 2026, >> right? >> Other questions about this summary sheet? Can I ask what the uh urr wo is? >> The the the largest increase that we're doing is the transfer out that we're um members of the council. I heard you at our last meeting that we had together and you were very concerned about having the the ability to save some money for future equipment and and capital and things like that. And so I did make adjustments so that um we could transfer some money to the equipment fund so that we didn't have to levy or we didn't have to issue debt for equipment purchases until now um 20 2030, I believe. So, we we're going to do it in in 25 and and then it's again in 29. So, it's there's >> instead of taking on debt, we're using the funds >> funds. Yeah. >> The funds that we have is what? >> That's correct. >> Go ahead, >> Miss Jagger. And this somewhat ties into a question that council member Swenson asked in this uh list of questions that Natalie shared with us and it, you know, and it pertains to the to the fund balance. So, we we're transferring out a significant amount of fund balance because we have it and and and we're reducing our fund balance to what's deemed an acceptable level. >> That's correct. >> What happens next year? Well, next year, >> excuse me, when we go to do budgets for 2027, >> 2027, I have done some projections and so um according to my projections, we would um continue to use I don't I do go out into the future and it would require um continued increase levy in order to So here's the my objections for levy increases for the future still be 9.8 9.6 8.8 8.4 and then it would eventually get down there. And when you look over here, we're still utilizing a little bit of fund balance, but that 25,000 in in 2027 is for contingency. I don't know that you'll use it. And so I thought, well, we might just say we're going to use it or, you know, budget for fund balance use for it, but don't actually levy for it. So, in other words, um, you you budget for a contingency, but you're not going to levy for it. You're just going to use your fund balance to pay for that contingency. >> Now, the appropriate time to advocate for putting that back into fund since it's there. And since council has the discretion if if there's a a budget shortfall somewhere that staff brings to the attention they then we go back to fund you know write a resolution and and pull that money out because in 2024 I believe it was 5,000 we increased by 100% to 10,000 in 2025 and now we want to increase it by another 150%. from 2025 to 2026. >> Brought it up as one of your key questions. Um, so looking at that, going right off what council member Glazer stated, does it matter if it's in a contingency fund or the general fund? >> So the a contingency line item is a budget line item >> that you have the ability to utilize during the year. say for like um this year there was culverts that that was were costing $25,000 that you didn't budget for and you budgeted I don't know $3,000 for culverts. So say all of your other budgets you spent and now you you don't have any money left and and so you had this emergency. Well, yeah, you have 25,000 in a contingency budget that you can say, I'm going to move that to the line item of of culverts and cover my expenditures that I did not anticipate. That's what a contingency budget is. And it's not in a different fund. It's in the general fund. So, it's just a line item that allows you to avoid going over budget because you're you're supposed to be legally um held legally responsible to be under budget every year and unless there's extenduating circumstances or if you get more revenue than you anticipated, then you can amend your budget. But normally it's, you know, you should stick within the the total budget that you have. Now then has never had a had an issue with staying under budget. They've always been under budget. It's never an issue. But it's just a a a way, you know, the 25,000 is just a a way to to help ensure that that never happens. >> It just ensures that you're planning for it is really what it comes out. Planning for that was my exact question what you said. Yeah. Give him more questions on that. >> Not at this time. >> Council member Spencer, go ahead. >> If uh I I do like your idea, Councilman Glazer, another idea I had was instead of using it to fund just, you know, part of the general budget this year, seems sort of silly to fund it that way, could we use it to pay down some of the the principal and the bonds? And if we did, how much would that save us in future? board. I mean, I like that you moved a lot of it into the the capital funds because that theoretically is going to prevent us from taking out additional loans. And so, both of those scenarios save our residents from having to pay um you know, interest, which is just wast. Can we pay those off early? >> Um Mr. Mayor, members of the council, Dan, they um the bonds that we've issued, I do not believe are callable. Plus, they were very low interest back in 2019 2021. I the interest rates I would not recommend prepaying that even if there is the ability to do that. Um, I would have to look back at the bond documents and see where you would want to do that is say, you know, we're issuing debt now in 2025 and uh the rates are between 3.1 right now and 4.1 and so so say in a couple years those rates go down to to two, which would that be awesome. But anyway, um that's the time when you either look at refinancing it or paying it off if it's if it's eligible to be paid off. So, but at this point, no, they're not. >> 10 20 year one, then they'll put in there that you can call them. It's called a call. Question. That's a good question. Yep. Oh, anyway, we you you were wondering what what happens in the future. Well, we continue to use some fund balance here in 28, but 29 and and so forth, we don't use as much fund balance. In 28, we do because we need to um transfer some money to the street improvement fund and to the equipment fund for equipment. Um and uh and how that impacts is that your levy would increase these amounts in the next >> this is only a projection. So this is not in stone but this is what I I have been able to work out. >> So nothing set in stone about no. So the way she's laid it out and we we touched base on this briefly is >> if I project out this far, this is where I see everything falling into place and it gives you a guideline to make sure the council's informed and can vote on it. >> Jagger, can you go back to the last tab on there and talk about what percentage the general fund will will be each year? That's also important because it's going to go down from where it's at. >> 5%. >> Oh, you mean the fund balance? Yes. >> Yeah. What percentage of the fund balance? right now it um it'll go down to 47% after using fund balance in 26 and then it eventually goes down to 32%. 31%. >> Swans, go ahead. >> Um, why was our our fund balance so high? Were we just coming in under budget every year and the additional dollars are just saved accumulated or I mean, as I understand it, like the sort of guidance to cities is is it like 40 to 50% of your yearly budget? >> Yes. Yep. Yep. >> Why did it get so high? >> So, um, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, you can see here in 2020 and 20 2021 and 22, there was an influx of money that we we received COVID grant money and we had not budgeted to spend it and we were allowed to use that COVID money for public safety. So that's what we reported when we reported the fund b the use of that. And so that money stayed in, you can see it went all the way up to 80% at that point and now it's still at 73% um in 2025. I mean that's a projection at at this point but so that's where the influx of money comes and we're using now 395,000 of that money that has been saved over the years to out to other funds. Can I just ask from the League of Minnesota Cities? We went to the training and they recommended I think it was 33 to 50% but I could be it's about that it's the >> well what what comes to mind for me typically is is 50% of your budget having that on hand >> something happens Mr. a negative impact to tax revenue that's coming in. >> Right, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, what happens is that you don't get your money until June. >> And so, you need to be able to pay your expenditures up through June and then you get your money and then you can pay the rest of your year's expenditures. And so, you do need to have um money in in your accounts to cover you from January through June. >> Just going off what the leak said, I think it was 33% was the minimum. Yep, that is >> I think the maximum was 50. Again, my number is going to be slightly off, but >> yeah, >> okay, thank you. >> Perfect. >> Swanson, our general fund balance and the percent as it compares budget, does it affect our our like interest rates? >> Um, Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, yes, the um standard impores when we will be talking to them soon. Um they will look at the the fund balance that you've had in the past and and maybe even at at some some projections. I don't know if I'm I'm going to give them the spreadsheet or not, but um they look at your u planning documents and that impacts. It's your budgets, how willing you are um to increase your levies to cover your costs. They look at a lot of a lot of different um things for >> where do we have our general fund invested page? I mean, I assume I think I saw on here we earned interest on it. Where >> it's mostly CDs right now? >> What percent are we typically getting? >> Um right now it's really good. It's like up 5%. Is it? >> Yep. going down slightly lately, but it's something that we can report on quarterly if I if you want. I think I do include it. I just don't put the rates in there. >> It just it seems like it would make a lot of sense. There's a lot of upside to keeping the money like Ken said in the general fund and figuring something else out for the the rest of the budget because we're earning interest on it. It seems like it might have a positive effect on our future interest rates for bonding and It's just >> I would say it makes sense to be there or you know it serves some other purpose to save the residents money in the long run rather than just spending it on a year >> because bonding interest rates are so good right now. So your savings you can do a sixmon CD at 5%. It's it's fantastic. That's not always the case. >> So just be aware right now perfect time. You got money and it's it's invested perfect. You're making 5% which is outdoing what our what we're paying for our levies, right? Mr. Mayor, members of the council, um the has several funds. It has the general fund and it has a bunch of special revenue funds and and it has debt funds and it has capital funds. Just because the money is in those funds doesn't mean it's not invested, we're investing it and no matter where it sits. So if even if you transfer this money out into another fund, if it's not spent, it's there. Yeah. >> So, the money that's going to the debt service funds is not going to be spent right away. It'll be sitting there earning interest and giving you the ability to to pay your debt service in the future. >> Yeah. And I again I I do think it makes sense to transfer it into those funds. It's the 102 spent on the the general budget that sort of >> Oh, okay. Customer Brian, go ahead. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm just concerned. I mean, obviously, if spreadsheet there where we are seeing the fund balance 2028 2029. So obviously we can by you coming up by going through and not finding out figuring out that we don't have to use as much fun number isn't dipping below 35%. Because yes, I would say using >> yes, we can use 425,000. We could go all the way down to zero if we wanted to, but it doesn't make sense, >> right? >> Because we do have to fund our um times in the year before the property taxes come in. So why we're going through the budget to go, do we really need to be pulling 400,000? Can we make adjustments? >> Not having to pull 400,000 out just for our operating. >> Decide is it better to spend it on copy paper or is it more important that instead of using it on just the operating to buy turnout gear or um make s to buy you know whatever other things. So that's why I would say it's important to go back through the budget and go how can we come up with ways not to have to use so much fund balance so that we're one we're not dipping below 35 and we can um safely say residents that you know we can't go in debt. I mean that's obvious that have um enough to to fund the city and be responsible >> and maybe that's something we can ask the council is you know just talking so next year puts us down to what 47% in 2026. >> Yep. But that's only if Mr. Mayor members of the council that's if the uh the budget the operating budget stays where it's at. you have the ability now, that's why we're having a work session to work towards maybe reducing that. >> Where I wanted to go with that is just stating if we want to keep it closer to that 50% as we discussing, >> we can change the projections out to future years. >> So again, it's whatever the council wants. It says if we don't want to get a 33% because that's the bottom of the barrel. We want to maintain 40, no less than 40, we can do all that. Miss Jagger will put the projections in for us. Mr. Mayor, council member Swansson, >> is there uh say we move all this money into the capital funds to sit there and we hit some super emergency where we need that money. Is it just a council vote to get it out of that fund back into the general fund or is there somewhere any other discussion just on where we would like to maintain that percentage? Want to keep it closer to 50%. Are we okay with 40%? 33% is not where you're comfortable with. >> I would rather be on the high end, the higher end than the lower end for sure. >> On that 50% coun >> like to maintain the 50 >> at a minimum. If we can have it better, that's great. >> Careful dropping it. Council member Glazer. I yeah, I would be in the uh I feel the same way. Um long as we're willing to look at how do we >> where do we trim operating expenses before we start >> 100% discuss? Yeah, just this is just really asking the council where they're at with the general fund. Council member Swson 50%. Is that where you >> I think that sounds good. Although I I might be a little different than the rest of you guys where I am comfortable reducing it a little further by putting some of the money capital funds um as we are but I still wouldn't want it to drop maybe but that's the only use I would want to see of it um I you know I don't want to see any reduction the general as a result of just normal 2026 budget >> and for myself I'm comfortable dropping down the 40% I know we've got some lower projections that uh Miss Jagger's put out but maybe we just said 40% is the bare minimum that we were very comfortable with the 50%. Maybe 50% is the answer because that's what I'm hearing from the majority of you is what they would like to see. So just the 50%. And that'll change some of the out years. Yep. >> And then we can go into your exact uh council member Glazer looking at what what can be trimmed. >> It's going to be tax increases that are substantial. >> They are. >> Okay. Are we going to go through some specific line items then? >> Yes. Um I'm going to skip the summary pages I think just because unless do you want to focus on the summaries or do you want to focus on details? >> So typically you'd start with summary level so we can get an understanding. It would be great if we're on that summary if we can go into the detail for that subject. So >> okay >> we're tackling them one at a time and going through them. Okay, let me uh fortunately I have to stop sharing and then reshare in order to umize this. So let's see. So for um the next topic then is the um summary of of the revenue changes here and it just shows you the tax levy right now being proposed is only the 225 >> page seven. Page seven for our package. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> And um the adjustments there are highlighted. Um again we talked a little bit about the decrease in the small city aid. Um there the charges for services are reflective of what has actually been collected under that uh line item as you can see from historical information and from 25 projections. And that's the same with the fines and forfeitures. Obviously 24 was a a year that we only got $7,000, but I'm projecting 10,000 for for 2025. The projected at 67. I hate to over project that because I just don't know what what is going to happen there. So I didn't change that. So that's the the revenues. Anyone has any questions regarding the revenue on then to the >> high level summary? >> Yep. This is high level and this is at department level. So um mayor and council I have no changes for your um activities in 2026 26 for office administration. You can see there we we reorganized the administrative um department and that has decreased their budget for 2026 elections. There's going to be a small election I believe in 26 and that's why there's $18,000 in there. >> It is but it's not a presidential. No, it's just a regular election. So it's not as much as a presidential one. um finance and assessing. There's an increase in the accounting and the audit fees for 2026. My rate is actually going up a little. It hasn't been increased. I I started with the now then and so I'm increasing my rate and the audit rate is going up also. Um legal um budgeting a little bit more money. You can see there in the in the past in 23 it was $80,000 that we spent. Uh 24 was uh quite quite a bit larger at 100 and I'm projecting 98 for for 2025 and I don't I obviously know that for sure but hoping that 26 will mellow out and we'll get by with 85,000. >> Glazer, go ahead. Do we what are we attributing you know that almost $17,000 rejected overrun. >> Kind of hoping that we'd be members of the council. I believe there's been a lot of um zoning type things that are happening or code enforcement that the legal team is having to look at. >> Enforcement would be some of that. Um Mayor to council. Also, one of the problems we have is with our criminal attorney, his billing is very erratic. And so we could get a bill for six to eight months at one time and maybe five of those months are from the previous year. that has an impact on and we had gone I think maybe almost a year without getting a bill from them. >> The big big bill. >> Yeah. >> So is there a way to you know break this out a little bit further so we know you know what percentage of that is coming from firm and what's coming from Blazers firm. No relation by the way. Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we do have detail further into the budget process that does break that out for you. And it's primarily civil. Um the prosecutotorial, which is the criminal, is about 35,000 and the civil is the other the remaining part of that budget. So about 60,000. Mr. Swanson. >> Um, does that also include the the legal costs that are like the pass through cost for us that we charge residents for their building projects where we send them the bill for >> No, it doesn't. All right. So, this is all our legal fees. >> Yeah. >> And a follow-up question. This might be a silly dumb question and I'm all right with it, but um you know I see how much we spend on both uh the planner and the attorney and I don't think either of those figures is enough to just straight hire someone to work for the city but if we combine them >> like is there such a thing as a city lawyerplanner? So, I understand a lot of the hours, maybe not a lot of the hours, but some of the hours are Cindy talking to Bob and if we got one person, I mean, they're essentially just applying ordinances. That's pretty much all they're doing. And so, I don't mean to minimize their jobs, either of them, but is that a a thing or at all feasible? >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I've never heard of that. And that's exactly why as a planner Cindy contacts a lawyer and and talks about the legal issues that she runs across. I don't know um of a position >> here. Um I know Oak Grove has their administrator does the planning but you have to have the person that has both those skill sets. And I I don't know used to have also too like we used our years back our building official and our planner was the same person. When that person left then we had to split because you need to be you can't you have to find somebody that has those two expertise. So one a law degree and second a planning degree and and I don't know how many of those are out there. That would be nice >> but I don't you know It is. It It would be a nice want. >> It was like trying to find a full-time fire chief that would work half time in the fire department, half time in the recycling center. [Laughter] >> Spencer, if you have any good ideas on on how to make that one person, I'm all yours. I >> I don't. It was, like I said, an admittedly maybe silly question. >> Silly question. I just don't think we're gonna find that time. >> And if anybody knows somebody, I will give this a call. Um, also too is like with the legal with pro um uh with Ruby, anytime it is dealing with personnel issues, that's got to go through our attorney. The the league will give you advice and the last sentence that they put in any email or letter is contact your attorney for for for um uh advice. So, and we've had some things where there's been personnel issues and the attorney has to come in on that. I think hopefully with us working on our ordinances that will help with some of that and and take some of that burden off of Cindy to have to go to Bob if we can get our >> that would be nice. I think it's a great point. So, if we can get that done in 2026, one, we have to have a budget to to rework our um our ordinances. But if so, could we reduce attorney's fees and planning and zoning fees for 2027? So, whatever we spend in redoing our ordinances could be reallocated to a straight line reduction uh to our cost. And that that's what I would like to see. I think that we're kind of in that uh we haven't voted on it, but moving that forward, I think, would make sense. >> Okay. So, so to the planning fees and the attorney fees and the engineering fees, Lori, please correct me if I'm if I'm wrong. I believe that Natalie is now with our escros, those dollar amounts that the Smith family has to pay for something are not in the budget where they used to always be in the budget because we had no other way of tracking them. So now if it's an escrow and there's it's an estimate of what kind of projects are going to come in and what that dollar amount will be, but those fee those dollars are no longer in our budget. So we're not putting those um dollars in our tax levy where the the the residents aren't paying extra for them and then we get paid back kind of a thing. Um but Natalie did work with Banyan to get that straightened out. So So that's reflective. I don't know how much you see it in here, but professional fees are are now if if it's an escroed item um or a designated item, they're not in our general expenses. >> Spencer, >> um backing up to office administration, um a question I I had raised earlier to Natalie was funding for like the office staff getting training. And the reason I'm thinking of that just now is because, you know, I'm thinking about the long-term reduction of hopefully the the planning costs or the legal costs if we redo our ordinances. But if we were to send our office staff to clerk training or some other sort of planning training where they could answer up to a certain level of of ordinance type questions for zoning stuff and reduce that need for sending seems like we could have sort of a compounding effect there >> with you know new simplified ordinances and maybe some additional >> training and uh so I guess my my question is do we have I didn't see any money a allotted to I saw I think $4,500 allotted to training. Is that just for Natalie or is that the whole office? >> That's the whole office. >> Natalie and also public works too. >> Nope. Public works has a >> he has a separate training. >> That's right. Okay. >> Know how much like the the training that we know Natalie's going to do that three year clerk training or whatever like what is the cost of that? Is it the entire $4,500 budget or >> I don't know at this time and Natalie has to answer that question. I haven't looked into it. Sorry. But we can ask, you know, and and have her um see if she knows that and bring it back to the next budget meeting. >> And I agree with Council Member Swinson. We need to um we need to provide educational opportunities for our staff. We've had some success with uh longevity and so we need to make sure that the employees that are there are getting trained learning from the league and whatever the there's the finance association. I can't think >> the GFO. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, so I mean there's things like that that that we should if we're having staff do those things and I know that Cindy's been working with Dileia um on basic land use things that hopefully then Dileia can answer and it doesn't >> Oh, and and Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, just to let you know, um, you know, the the the amount that I have in there under legal for 2025 is is only a projection and I'm I'm basing that on the activity that has occurred through May because that was the only information I had. And so maybe there was a lot of activity in January through May and won't be as much activity and and so this number is just a projection and normally if I look back because I have that information available um the the average um cost for 20 19 2021 um was uh 60,000 a year for both prosecatory and and then it just kind of bumped up in 22 and that's when 22 23 and 24 we've had more expenditures especially in 24 and so maybe maybe it's a a >> I think a couple things have changed one we're using Mr. will be online as much as possible. So I think this is going to be heavy front-loaded and it's going to reduce down and hopefully we'll stay stay in budget. >> Perfect. Can >> that's why for and Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I've budgeted only 49,000 for civil attorney in 2026 and 36,000 for uh prosecuting attorney in 2026. That's how you get to the 85,000. in this um Mr. Mayor, members of the council, in here we budget for the entire merit. So we're we're showing a 5% merit increase in here for all employees in the city of now. Then um and that's where the the increase comes in based on last year compared to or this year compared to 26. Um and then professional services the uh workers comp was reduced quite a bit because um >> his injury fell off. >> Yep. Yep. And so that that changed that. >> Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Glazer, do you recall the the total percentage >> 2025 if you're looking? >> No, for salaries. So in 2024 the merit increase was 3%. But there were also cost of living raises included in there. >> That was 24. >> Yep, that was 24. And the cost of living was 3 and a2. So it was a total of 6 and 12% that was budgeted. was uh no cost of living. Merit increase was three and a half. Mr. Mayor, go ahead. I I would just like to communicate a point for us to think about now and going forward in the future. And when I think about um a 5% merit increase and you know average so we were at 6 and a half% in 2024 3 and a half% in 2025 we're looking it's it's being asked for another 5% for 2026. So we're at average at five. Rule of 72 comes to mind for me. And rule of 72 tells us that if we continue down this path of 5% every year, um, while it would be nice to be able to do, but by doing that, according to rule of 72, just raw payroll alone increases by double. So $105,000 salary becomes $210,000 in 14. So the and know I don't have all the details and maybe council member Rainville and council member Brian can help a little bit with this but um we we were in a situation as a city where um an administrator doing some uh payroll analysis and going out for comparing you know job to job out in the marketplace >> and where um and council asked how long was it that staff didn't get an increase because they were above market. Go ahead. >> There were many years that staff did not get an increase and it some of it was based on above market. Um some was based on just council chose not to. Um, I will say I was part of that group of saying no and I learned my lesson and um I will not go down that path again. It's not fair to our employees. Um, if we want to retain employees, we need to pay employees because we didn't get something in our work um environment does not mean that staff shouldn't receive something. And the 5% I it's my understanding and I could be wrong. It's it's up to and it doesn't have to be everybody that. So last year um the administrator set was given these parameters. You have up to this much. You decide within your workforce your your employee base who gets what. And so and I don't know if everybody got five. I don't get into that. So I don't I don't know if everybody got five. I you know that I don't know um you know I know our recycling employees needed a good wage increase. They are um thoroughly underpaid for what they do. Um and it's not a job that people are applying for. Uh we now have some consistency within our employees. They're doing um as much as they can on their own to try to increase their value to us. And I think we need to acknowledge >> the point that I'd really like to communicate is I'm not advocating for not giving our employees a race. I'm advocating for balance because we can we could get things to a point where they're out of scale again and we can't we simply can't afford to the the job doesn't doesn't warrant the warrant the increase in pay. And we're continuing to ask the taxpayers to increase, you know, that portion of our budget because when when we let's when we give somebody when somebody gets a a raise, that that dollar an hour isn't the only only dollar that gets spent in in giving that pay increase to somebody. there's all the all the other costs in in you know other taxes and social security health benefits what whatever it happens to be you know so does does para go up when somebody's pay goes up >> so all of these things have to be taken into consideration and so what point is I would I'm looking for balance not to get high and we can't justify giving somebody a is I don't want to get to that point, but we could get there. >> Can I ask just a quick question? Where did the 5% come from? >> Just conversations amongst the council and looking at what other cities were doing. Um, you know, one year as on a social security that I get, I got about a 6% increase on social security. you know, I've only gotten 1% after that, but um I will say to um to council member Glazer, when we looked at salaries and they were above what the going market was, that was back when we first turned to account uh city in 2008. So that was a long long time ago. We have tried I believe to be consistent with what market provide, what market pays. And if you can go get a job at Menard's for a better dollar than you can hear, probably going to go to Menard's. Um, but I think that we have good ed highly educated employees and um I don't see us um I think we're all smart enough to know we're not going to double something in 14 years. >> Tell me when when we as a council had a conversation and talked about a 5% merit increase. >> That that what you were looking for, Mr. Mayor? Yeah, we've never talked about that or talked about that. >> Well, I previously previous councils have have always talked about what percentage it's going to be. It was their decision was was derived by information that council or that staff and the league pro provided um with >> I'd like to take that one and let's bring a recommendation from the league or whatever recommendations we've got. I do not I personally don't think a 5% is appropriate. So, is it a 3%? That would be general. Um, and it can go to 3.5. It can go up to four if you've got, but that's higher than even the inflationary cost. If I look at 5%. >> Current 12 month CPI is 2.9. >> I think we just bring some data back. And how has it been done in the past? Is the council just recommended this is what they want or did you come in with any recommendations on what it should be? >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we have uh the staff and consultants have come with recommendations and then the council has a discussion and then they decide on on what what the recommendation >> well and this this is the recommendation that the the consultant and staff is recommending. It's based on um contact with other cities as far as what they are going to be bringing towards their councils. Nothing has been approved yet. It's not gone through any process. All cities are going through this process right now. And so it's really up to you to >> it's it's very it's it's very informative when we when all all different cities around us all do it differently. >> Some that's what I'm hearing right now. Right. And that's and that's literally what it is where some cities that may have have tax basis, they do a cola and a merit. Um, other other cities, um, I think Columbus or something sometimes, you know, they everybody else has gone raises, they've had none. I'm not picking on Columbus. That's just what I remember. But um so we can get that information and it's worth at least seeing as we're call it a cola because then it then then it was discretionary as far as it could be up or um to to make some adjustments and not just be one flat rate. staff to to pull that together, but it's going to still >> I don't know if it's a good comparison. >> It's it's good to see as a reference in my opinion, but then we still would we'll we'll need to have that discussion about what the number is actually going to be. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Just for reference, I mean, I just quick Googled it. I didn't verify anything, but Google says that I I Googled Minnesota raise data by year and it says Minnesota wages and salaries for the year. I I don't think it's out of step with the rest of the state and have both the you know cost of living increase and know you know at least in our office staff a lot of them are fresh to their jobs either fresh out of college or fresh um you know promoted and I think that's typically when you get the most merit raises plateau out I think and that's as good as you're going to get the job. But I I do think it's important that we, you know, we focus on paying them fairly for the job that they're doing as opposed to So, I mean, I agree with both of you guys actually. I don't want to get out of step and just blindly give 5% to give 5% except it's a thing to do. But I also I don't want to get too tied down and looking at, you know, oh, this is, you know, going to cost us X over the next couple years because it's going to cost us more if we don't give them a raise and they go work for another city and they have to look for someone else, train them, hire them. >> I think everybody's in alignment. I think it's really the balance. I really >> we've at least talked about it. We don't have to make a decision on it tonight. Is that correct? All right. I >> think we've we've noted that down. I would love to see the data from other cities. I'd also like to see some corporate data because ain't nobody had no 5% raise this year in corporate America. I'm going to tell you that >> didn't happen. But >> I I know many people that in private industry are are >> depends on who you work for, you know, whether it's private or public. um or yourself. You can just raises or not take a raise. You know, I and I, you know, to Dan's point, Dan Brian's point too is we've had information from other cities, but it's very difficult to find a similar city. You know, we don't have the water, we don't have sewer, we don't have electric, we don't have these different things where other um cities do. And so, you know, compensation is not always apples to apples. And I know in the past that we have tried to um administrator Laner tried to look at what is our public works making today and what would we have to pay to replace a lot more than what we were paying. And so I know he was trying to incrementally incrementally increase some of the public works fun monies. So that's why he was given a and tell me if I'm wrong, council member Brian, he was given the authority to say you have this much money in a pot. You decide within your employees um where that should go >> like to continue move on to meeting. I think we've all talked on that. You got planning and zoning up. Is that the next one? >> Yep. Yeah. So, um, members of the council, this budget isn't actually changing, but it what's happening is there there's going to be a shift in what the planner is. So, um, in 2026, they start the, um, comprehensive planning. I think it's the 10 year. So, that some of that money is going to be happening. I know in 25 um, a lot of work being done on your ordinances and things like that. why there's so much being spent in again in 26 it'll be but there's no change um engineering there's no road study uh 26 but there are the comprehensive plan things offsets itself a little bit but it there is a reduction uction in the engineering cost. >> Can I ask a quick question? Do we need a road study, a comprehensive road study done? >> Council member Ryan or Council Member Rainville, I know you guys paid for one last year. This the results of what come out of it. Not much at all. Um I'd really like to get to a long-term projection of that 15 years. We haven't talked about it, but that's something we need to look at budgeting for next year. Um question comes, have we for sure got in the past was literally a book on that to where they'll turn that into a use what we have then no um I uh use what we and or have them have Um, this is a little out of place, I guess, to mention now, but another question I had was about road funding and the possibility of maybe separate road because from what I've heard from our city engineer in these meetings is that we're sort of falling falling behind on the road maintenance and it it actually cost us more money in the long run to skip an overlay and have to redo a road. And so I I think that would be one area that I would feel comfortable justifying, you know, an increase in in levy just for roads. And if we were to do that, I'm wondering, you know, it's a big if, of course, but if we were to do that, would the report that we got last year be sufficient to out a plan or would we need a new road study, you know, considering, you know, a a persistent increase in funding for the next? >> I think that's the million-dollar question. For what we got from the road study, I believe we got everything we're going to get from the emails that I read, unless you guys or somebody else read something different. I think there's no more. you're getting a map with no detail on anything and it was what a $20,000 expense. I think it was one that we can learn that we do not want to go back to this individual for a road study, but it doesn't get us anywhere close to where we want to be. >> I understand wanting to look at the big picture over, you know, 20 years and that's that's great. But I to piggyback on what council member O'Brien is, we have really the road expert on our on our staff and that's Jill. Um Eric is there also. Isaac is learning, but I think between them and Shane, you could come up with a five and a 10year. Um, I think they could tell you off the top of their head right now what the next five roads are that need to be done in the next five years >> as they look at them every day. >> No doubt they can come up with a fiveyear right now. Yeah. >> The the difference being is if they if we don't get out the 15year and I'm going to use my road as an example. It didn't get overlaid and now guess what? The road is at end of life and it's going to end up costing the residents more money. I'm one of them residents. Am I okay with it? Yeah. But do I want to be paying more money for the road? If we get ahead, I don't even say get ahead of it. All we have to do is maintain >> maintain our roads to minimize the cost of the residents. And you can't do that on a five-year plan. You have to be out further than that. So, >> if Joe and um St. Shane, our city engineer, can do that, I would be certainly fine with it. But it needs to lay out that projection. five years just doesn't give you enough foresight to where because otherwise what can happen is you're short or you can do that five years but what you might be missing is the big mountain coming right behind it or it could be a a very low spot where I think it's going to be more of a mountain so I think we are slightly behind it's not that there hasn't been anything done that's not the case at all you guys have been doing it every year but I don't think we're in front of it so that's just my opinion guys >> Rainbow >> also too is when we talk about road study and we did ask them to include it last time is we also need to look at our gravel roads. Um some of our gravel roads needs work. Um and not just the periodic grading that they do and the calcium that they put down. They need actual work >> structure put back into them. Yes. >> So part of it is soil content. This is >> Y >> I'm on a road that the the same holes have been there because we're we're just maintaining we're not um going that extra step and hasn't been budgeted for but we're just maintaining those same holes and I think we could do >> for a high level today I just mark down road study and we can talk further on it I don't want to spend the whole meeting on each of the items. >> Anything else for discussion >> the council >> go ahead. I do go out several years for planning purposes. So I do the CIP for five years, but I project out for probably 20 and also include that in my projections for how much debt you're going to need and how much levy is going to be. And it all culminates into that that spreadsheet that I that I showed you with the percent. So trying to get >> if they don't give you the inputs of this is how many dollars you need for roads, >> right? >> But I just project out exactly, you know, what Shane is telling me for five years, I increase that amount going out. >> So I've got a million a million dollars a year out in in >> Yeah. And that's probably where we need to be in the next five years. >> Something like that just a just to sustain. And that's not adding any new roads. That's not doing anything. Enough on road studies. >> What's the next one? >> The sheriff's contract. Uh, we don't really have a lot of control over that. It's going >> discussion on sheriff's contract. >> Correct. >> Nice. >> So, um, originally the fire chief was budgeted as a full-time position and now it's only a part-time position. So there is a decrease in the sales for the fire chief and has requested some increases in supplies, professional services and I I put in the increase in the utilities [Music] in training for the fire department and some capital items that uh fire department was >> Chief, you're here. Can you just talk us through these and why you're recommending 11.64% 64% increase >> fair and council members. Um, first of all, I I what's not reflected in this is >> we get about 38, >> but there's no training dollars in here, so that's what I'm I'm missing. Yes, there is. That's what that large $30,000 increase. >> Well, that says maintenance. Ah, >> um, so just to explain some of the some of the increases. Um, like I've said in the past, we're projecting to ask department um that um for hiring physicals, maintaining those um training those sorry training those employees. Um and then we also are going to increase our training uh physical training that we do with our firefighters. Um and so that then um puts stress on our equipment. So I I would expect that we're going to have some maintenance of our equipment that comes along with that. Um so I don't have good historical data for this fire department um because six months. And so I'm looking at what I believe will be a a healthy budget that is um well within the the constraints on the fire department um without putting us behind an eight-ball for that. >> Talk about the capital. You got 20,000 for capital also. >> Absolutely, Mr. Mayor and council members. The $20,000 was for that rescue equipment that I talked about. I believe it was in March when I came to to talk to you about the heavy rescue equipment stuff that we don't currently have. Um that would be a one-time purchase that we can then put into the uh long-term equipment budget. >> Is there a better way to project this uh Miss Jagger to say that, hey, yep, we have this expense, but he's going to get you get 100% return on all your training dollars? >> Almost 100%. Yes. So, could that go back in here because it's being put back in? Mr. May, >> members of the council, it is reflected in the revenues. So, it's it's >> okay. So, it's not in here, but it's reflected in. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Swson, you have one. >> Yeah. I just I had a question for the chief. I know that you're working on recruitment and city and every other paid on call fire department is struggling to find people to work. Aside from jacking the wage up to some unrealistic wage, is there any other strategic way to you know use bucks to help the recruitment efforts that you can think of matter of you guys getting out and Mr. Mayor, council members, that's a great question. Right now, um, we're doing I think I think the plan that we have in place is about the best that we're going to do right now without without again the history here. I have to we have to do recruitment to find out what the what we can gather out of the community. And I think we have a good plan um to focus our efforts around um some community events. Um, we're getting the word out to to other fire uh or other well other fire departments that are out there as we talk about kind of what their requirements are versus what our requirements are um for response and I believe that we are working with our personnel to give a good life balance um that maybe other fire departments aren't doing and and when I I talk about that um there are departments that are holding fire uh fire personnel to percentage of calls and being very strict how and when they can respond. Um we're trying to be more flexible with our personnel. And what we're finding out currently, um when I started here, we're averaging very low percentage in how many people would actually show up for calls. Um and our percentages have gone up, um uh 70% and how many people are responding to calls. And so I think we have a good model going. Um but we'll see what that that flushes out for um new employees. So um uh again I'm very confident on I think we're moving in the right if that if that will actually come to fruition. >> Chief, do you have any dollars in here for recruitment costs? >> Mr. Mayor and council members, the the dollars that we have in there are reflected in u >> services. >> Yeah. So there it's really about we're not we're not using dollars to go out and say advertise or things like that. We're trying to minimize the amount of money we have we have to spend to to advertise. Um I think we can do a really good job on with the community events and and some of the other uh recruitment internet things like that. um the firefighter Fridays out there that the popular and and our um view starting to get interest in people calling us and asking us if we're hiring paid on call firefighters, things like that. So, we're trying to do this without spending a lot of money and I think we're I think our plan is in plan in place to do that. There are dollars in the budget for to cover physicals and and equipment and uniforms and print healthcare things like that, but not necessarily straight up recruitment dollars. >> Any other questions for Chief on his budget? >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Brian. >> Um, and this is probably a combination question for Lori as well. Um she there I mean we're projected right now to be about $60,000 under budget number in front of us here,000 worth of expenses coming between now. >> So Mr. Mayor Council members, it's hard for me to project where we're at as far as um where we're going to end up at the end of the year, but we do have some equipment that we need to to purchase. Um we haven't done hose testing yet and so we may have some hose that we're going to need to replace but test that if we have hose that fails. Um we do have a five gas meter that has failed um that we need to about a $2,500 expense. Um we've got uh our uh radio batteries that go bad. They're $100 a piece. And so we have some expenses that are going to come up. Um, I don't think it's gonna I don't think that we're gonna have a $60,000 under budget. Um, it would be hard for me to to say, but I think that we could be confident about $20,000 under budget. Um, depending on still coming up. Again, we've had a lot of maintenance this year in our in our equipment. I don't know that all of those maintenance bills have come through the city yet. >> And are they in that particular 257 or did they get allotted into somewhere else for maintenance? I don't know. >> They're within the department that the 250 >> it is it is reflected in there >> based on that amount. Let's just assume whatever it is is can um I'm pretty confident the answer is we could I know last year we we were in the same situation where we had a 2024 budgeted amount for fire and we were well under um for last year and instead of keeping that within the fire department it was put just back into the the general operating to pay for everything. Can we and I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Can we earmark any uh unspent fire department funds that they can stay in the fire department? >> Um Mr. Mayor, members of the council, yes, at the end of the year there is we could do a resolution um to designate funds for fire going forward. But I'm just looking at in this case, we're you're talking about $20,000 worth of equipment. If we know we're $20,000 under, we could either a get it this year and not have to not include that in next year if we knew now that we probably would be about in that $20,000 range that we could take that 20,000 out right now out of the budget and know that Chief Miller could be using that that equipment sooner than later. So, like the heavy rescue equipment is $20,000. And if >> I'm just thinking again, I'm just looking at ideas. If we're looking at turnout gear and other equipment, that would be one way to to backfill because we or we have the turnout gear fund now. Um I instead of it would be good in my opinion to make a conscious effort to go if we know that there's going to be um turnout gear and a grass rig and all that kind of stuff that if that money's there for this year to keep it in the fire department without moving it elsewhere. Council >> member Glazer, go ahead. >> This is a a question that we can kind of keep an eye on and table till I think roughly September. Correct. Right. >> When we get to the point where our our budget or our levy increase it at that >> after September. averaging that after September. Um, mayor, members of the council, so when you when you think about um unspent budget in any department, um, if your revenues are higher than your expenditures overall, regardless of what you budgeted, what you what you didn't budget for, there is additional fund balance that's left over. And yes, it's true. Your fund balance has been growing. Um, and now we're utilizing that fund balance to transfer to equipment, to pay for fire equipment, to transfer to turnout gear, to pay for turnout gear, to transfer to debt service, to pay for debt, to transfer to road improvements, to pay for road improvements. If you if you want to, you can set up another fund and transfer money out specifically for fire. But these types of capital items come up occasionally for a department and initially you pay for them out of the general fund with a levy dollar or with fund balance use. And then when you replace the equipment, that's when it goes to the replacement fund and and you replace the equipment and you have it planned and you say in 5 years or in 10 years we're going to replace this equipment and this is what it's going to cost. And you plan on that and you transfer money there. And so I don't I don't see the benefit of of setting aside the $20,000 this year. Even though he is going to be under budget, it is basically being transferred to the equipment replacement plan for future equipment replacement. >> Maybe we can just ask the question, can we spend the $20,000 on the heavy rescue equipment this year because you're under budget? >> Mr. Mayor, council members, um I would be comfortable doing that closer towards the end of the year when we know where exactly where we're at. Um but I think we might be too late to reduce the budget um prior to prior to that occurring because I believe you have to set your budget in November or uh December. >> Not until December. >> Not to December. So we might we might be able to to do that and be able to reduce the budget for 2026. Um, so yes, >> possible, >> very possible, >> probably. >> But Mr. Mayor, members of the council, currently right now, we're still using fund balance to for operations and so that would not impact the levy because you're still using 60,000. What did I figure because I' I've got a new number again already. Um, you're still utilizing fund balance to pay for some operations. And so this this any if you you have to reduce your budget by more than 60 something,000 in order to start reducing the levy. >> Yes. >> Up for it. >> I can tell you the exact amount here. 66,000 is what it is. So, if you can reduce your your uh budget by $66,000 or more, then you can start impacting the the Rainbow >> or increase revenues,000 is it? Let's say we had a 10% levy. >> What would that $66,000 bring it down to? >> Well, that it won't change your levy. What I'm saying is that in order to change your levy, you have to find $66,000 more than $66,000 in savings. >> Right? If we come up with 66, what does that do? >> So then so so then if say you actually come up with 80 and so it's it's 14,000 um and and that would be um that would get down to 9.3 from 9.8. Oh, >> half a percent. Yeah. >> Okay. Did Did you want to review as long as he was he's that Rob is here, did you want to review the detail in the fire management or you want to continue with summaries? Yes, I'll open up to council. Any questions for Chief Miller >> buckets bucket we're in tonight. So, I don't know that we want to jump into extreme detail. >> Got pages and pages to go here. >> Yes. >> One more full page to go. >> Yes. For summaries, >> summary side. Anything else we need to know? >> Council members, I don't believe so. >> I think we continue to move on. Please. >> Next one is the building inspections. Um, that is going up by $500 cost of of doing activity that's going on. And now then >> unless we see a whole bunch more homes being built this >> I was just going to say >> appreciate that. >> Take a minute. >> Thanks for coming in sir. >> And then Mr. Mayor, members of the council will move on to public works. Um we're moving some of their um salaries and benefits to parks because they're spending more time in park maintenance and things like that. Um that's same with their supplies. And then their maintenance budget is going up slightly by $5,000 just to cover general maintenance of equipment and and and public works. We do have Joe with us tonight. questions. >> I have a question. >> Okay. >> All right. Council Swson, >> I I learned today when I was talking to Natalie that uh Joe and those guys, they they covered a hole in the floor of one of their vehicles with a sign so water wouldn't splash up. And that just seems crazy to me. And I'm wondering, is this a city vehicle? >> This is a truck. >> Bobcat. >> Oh, the Bobcat. All right. And so I I'm just wondering, you know, I think you've done a good job, you know, working with the budget you have and and stretching every dollar. Are there any, you know, about to sort of blow up? Like have are I mean, that's more a question for the capital improvement probably with with the equipment, but >> Yep. It's in 2026, Mr. Mayor. members of the council 2026. >> What's that? >> There we go. And I guess I mean is the budget that is listed here I mean that that's workable in your opinion or is there any big holes or anything that you'd like to share with us or point out? Glaze. Mr. Glaze, is that primarily the the grater or were there other pieces of equipment? Pardon? Tractor self or attachments associated. How many hours are on the factor? >> So Joe, just so you met with Natalie and and I know you've been part of the capital improvement plan. So the things you were projecting out like you had said when we had met when uh council member Glazer and myself met with you uh talking about hey your dump truck was getting old but you're putting a new box on it so that got projected out a little further. >> Um so here's my question back to you is are you comfortable with where things sit at in the CIP plan? So for the replacement plan the tool CAD is in 2026. >> Yeah. And that was one that I remember you had mentioned to me on but are you comfortable with the rest of the plan and how things are laid out by year? So, yes, I used to have it laid out that was based on $50,000 a year going into the equipment. Now, in the past, you've uh said that you would have to budget it and try to get it every year because they kept moving it out. So, I don't believe that's taking place anymore. Now, you're projecting the need is there. Uh we're look we'll look at it as part of our budget process. So it's not >> right. >> That was one of your concerns also. >> Right. There anything else you'd like to add while you got a microphone? Sir, >> I think the box we're talking about is for the 07 Sterling boxes jump. >> Absolutely. >> We place the box on the truck will last. got a project out 2030 or 203 28. Okay. So, it's down a few years because we were able to replace the box. >> Okay. Is there any other questions for for Joe? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Back to you, M. >> Thank you. Um, so farmers market, we're we're continuing to uh that at $2,500 a year. >> Mr. Mayor, council >> member uh Rango, go ahead. >> I would just state that we do fund that and it's more so if something major would happen. Um the costs the the the vendor fees co have covered the costs other than the year we bought the trailer >> and that is getting to its last legs. Um but so so we do budget 2500. Um from that budget is the stipens for the coordinator and the manager. Um any miscellaneous supplies but those tr those dollars truly come from the vendor fees. So, it's worth the wash, but we just have to account for it. >> It's pretty self- sustaining operation >> and and very low cost. >> Yeah. I I've had a brief conversation with Natalie and I will sit down with her again to just kind of on the side put what it what is what have we brought in in revenues each year based on what our expenditures are and it will show that it is self-sufficient and it overfunds itself. So whatever the vendor fees coming in are are actually sitting in the general fund. >> And as I Mor members of the council mentioned earlier, parks area um we're we're spending a little bit more time there with maintenance and and that's reflective in the the increases in the in the park area. >> Upper Rum River Wershed Management Organization, their budget is going up $2,200. Pardon me. >> Oh, is that why? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Say the comp plan. That's a 10-year comp plan. Is that correct? >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. The just like cities, the watershed group also has to make >> also has one. trying to fund that so that um when it comes time to do the actual comp plan that that we're not having to increase our budget $30,000. Try to keep it nice and level. That's where we're at right now. And Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, again, the contingency budget, this is just a recommendation on my part. Um, 1% of the overall total operating budget. >> That's another challenge as part of the $66,000 to get cover the contingency. >> Then, Mr. where um the transfers out there are listed are the increases in the transfers out. I'd prefer not to go through all of the the line item details if we just want to focus on whatever questions you may have. >> I think we should open it up for questions at this point. know that we have three meetings scheduled uh for this and I think we should talk them over on what the dates are for them because I I'm going to tell you I seen something come out and and it's not on my calendar so I wasn't tracking it 6 or something like that is that >> just a second is that on Lor's memo >> I think it was off Lor's memo I read it I'm like >> I got them I got the budget calendar >> I was not tracking August and I'm not going to be here August 6th. >> So, Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. Council member Ramble. >> Yeah, tonight we have Wednesday, August 6th, >> and Wednesday, August 20th, September >> and September 3rd if need be. >> But for some reason, I didn't have August 6 and I have another commitment. I'll be out of state. So how if we just pop them back and you know just say that the just move so we say that we will have the September 3rd because we won't have the August 6th if you're done mayor. >> Oh sure is that >> is that acceptable to >> Can you say that again? I'm sorry. So, so if the mayor is not in town for the August 6th meeting, we have August 20, excuse me, September 3rd if necessary. And we would just cross off the if necessary and and cancel the August 6th. That's >> that's acceptable to everybody. >> Then we don't have to look at calendars anymore. broadcast. Then what's um are we going to put it? We can just do the 20th >> easier. >> Blame it on the Nyquil. >> Blame it on the night. There you go, >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Well, then maybe we should maybe touch on some of the other funds because I think we'll have to focus on the general fund again on August 20th and we can touch on the other funds again on September 3rd. So, if we could stay a little bit longer and just touch on some of the other funds tonight 8:00, something like that in the 20 be that and then that way we can touch on the other funds because they're pretty simple. and um and then uh refocus on the general fund on August 20th cuz that's more we need to resolve, you know, some of the issues that are still out there regarding pay increases and >> and I think everybody's got a short list of things that >> they want to do that we need to >> y >> get resolved or come to agreement on >> before I forget it. Maybe it's page numbers with the actual with your page numbers. >> Right. Right. I so I page I numbered mine and then Natalie also numbered. >> No, that's not what I'm saying. Your numbers I'm not following even using your numbers. They're not lining up. >> Okay. >> Wanted to let you know. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Which page would you be referencing? So, >> so for example, it says fire department detail on page 16. And if you use Lory's page numbers, it's not page 16. All these page numbers are the ones on the at the at the bottom. >> Yes, they are >> not necessarily lining up for me. >> Fire department on page 18. >> So do I. All right. So my memo was off. >> No, the actual that all part of the memo and your statement fund balances. What page is that on? >> That is Natalie's page nine. >> Okay, >> that would be your page six, maybe. >> Oh, okay. >> All your detail on >> my detail. Yep, you're right. I probably didn't update that. >> Okay, that was just kind of I was trying to track and I'm going, okay, these are off by a little bit. I just want >> Yes, they are definitely. Thank you. I'll correct those. I don't know that I'm going to reissue those though because we're going to focus on the detail in August and I probably won't do the summary sheets. I'll I'll just do that. >> You want to take us through what you >> That's fine. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um so >> tell us which page number we should be looking at. >> Okay. Yep. I'm gonna jump in. I've got uh the the charitable funds are on my page 22. It would be Natalie's page 25, I think. >> Contribution fund. >> Yep. Yep. >> I think I mentioned this earlier. the 50,000 we're transferring to the general fund to help offset the uh the fire the the public safety. Um that is a legitimate there's a there's a list of items that you can pay for with with these public safety is one of them >> be right in line. >> Yes. >> Public safety is very important. If we've got a funding stream that'll help offset that'd be great. Yes, that is one is recycling and this might be a bigger budget to tackle. Um cycling revenue I put in there uh initially that we would get $40,000 from the county. And you can see we've really have gotten that much from the county, but they don't they do not budget for that for us. They only budget like $30,000. And so we should just show what they budget for us and then at the end of the year if they have excess funds we can apply for those and get reimbursed for it. And and historically the city has been able to do that. And so um that's where the the $40,000 is coming. Am reflecting >> Do we think they were going to give us 40,000? >> Yeah. Well so Mr. Mayor >> Go ahead council >> in the past. So, we can get up to like 50, but we're only assured like 29, >> but we were using 50 with a with a misunderstanding that we're we're not going to get that. So, we're back down to the 29. Like, it's like like you'd say 75. It goes up about $13 a year. I mean, it does not go much. Um the additional funds that are available through grant processes um they are holding a grant request from me right now to put air conditioning into the um recycling center. Um had an initial email back and forth with them. I'm waiting to hear again. I it's almost I don't want to call because I haven't heard no. >> Oh, >> but I don't want to call. So um we are looking at it's probably 18 or $19,000 to put in um an air conditioning unit in the recycling center. Um they will also let us know if there are any additional funds um for larger purchases like the remodeling was done with the extra funds that they have. Our roll off was uh purchased with the extra funds that they have. Um I'm also working on documentation with with DIA. We have a large percentage of our users that are not now then residents. Started tracking in September of 23. So, I've got almost two years of of tracking and I've broken it down by city and by county and I have to get that information to Sue Doll knows we're do we're doing it and we're going to be submitting it. I just we had a medical emergency in our family and so I got pushed back and so I'm working on that to get that to them um to see if we can get some any additional funds to compensate the city for the non-resident users. >> We're not charging any more money for non-resident. >> No. Go ahead. Council council member is when was the last time that we as a and did comparisons on that also offer recycling services were on par with what they're charging at what's driving non-residents to come to >> Mr. mayor to council member Glazer. Um earlier right now we she and I are looking at tire expenses. Um we she just she looked at bulbs. So we she looks at that quite often as to see where we are compared to other cities. Sometimes it's based on volume and um we don't have the volume that say Rapids does. Um, so, so our expenses can be more. Um, sometimes it's, you know, so we can send in a we send in a a roll off of cardboard, not a roll off of cardboard, a roll off of metal. We know we're going to make money on that. We send in a roll off of newspaper. Cost us $200 to have that delivered or picked up and delivered to the to the end user. I think we got $13 for it. So, it's a loss, but we can't control market pricing. Some years it was very, very high. Um, so there are times that we have to charge more for something because we're losing over here. So, Dileia does look at that. And again, we just I just sent her an email tonight where we're going to talk again about the tires. We had two different bids from our existing hauler and then the hauler that came and did uh picked him up uh via mosquito control at the uh spring recycling date. >> But as an example, you brought up Rapids. Do we charge the same as >> there are different Nobody's charges the same. We're all within certain We're all very comparable. Um and it just depends on who your hauler is and what they're charging you. Um, and but and a hauler that can take seven loads a week out of a recycle center is going to charge that recycling center less than us where we have um if we do one thing of GL one roll off of glass a year or Rapids does quite a bit more than that and so they get a better deal from on their from their haulers. So, but we we do watch it. We we changed around who does our mattresses. um you know there are things that um staff is helping and trying to look at things. Um but we we do watch it and we made some adjustments up. I mean we did we increased our um tires last fall tires because our bills from first date went up. >> All of a sudden there's a new f fuel charges, there's new this, there's new that. So Dia is watching that. Some of the the the delay in doing that has been staffing. We now have Dillia is there and she's watching it on a daily basis >> for now on that. Yes. >> Brian, >> um and it's probably not a question we're gonna be able to answer tonight. But how why um wages is up 20% over last >> is this in the recycling one? >> Yeah. >> Page 23 on the bottom page number >> 27. Well 27 is the detail but yeah >> there is more part-time um hours I think being spent there and we're also going to charge some of Dillia's time. Part-time hours for 25 should be at or less than last year because >> that be continuing into next year. >> Questions? I don't know. >> Mr. Mayor, go ahead. >> Council um the staffing. I mean, it's it's just it's the the part-time is down in Christy. Um there will be administrative in there. Um they did receive an increase in in their wages for 2025, I believe, through um what was determined for the 2025 budget. Um I I couldn't tell you how much it was an hour. I didn't look, but that is just that that's their wages. Um any part-time would be um and then the full-time budget is the times that either Eric, Joe or Isaac are in there and they're moving equipment around like they're bringing they're pulling out with the skidster they're pulling out the the rolloffs. The part-time staff doesn't do that. They don't run that equipment. Um, but I I I mean other than a wage increase um and Don maybe Don worked more hour maybe worked more hours when Christy was out but >> right that still doesn't justify 20%. >> I have to ask 16.4% 4% increase is that >> well no just looking at what we're projecting for to for 2025 if if we're b maybe I'm wrong and and maybe Lori is going off a a different calculation based off of what's projected for 2025 but if we looked at what's projected for 2025 versus the actuals for 23 and 24 we're at we're 20% higher and I also know that we've had allocated to have staff time in the recycling center to put together the reports and that kind of stuff. So I'm just if we are be to the point that you made Mr. Mayor that we are double staffing um cycling center that's obviously an increase in potentially an increase in wages that we're not expecting and at some point in time my question would be is that going to come to an end because we shouldn't double staffing. If we're double staffing, then we got to figure out what's going on and figure out what we're doing through recycling center because that's considerable. And I would assume then that that's causing the 16% increase. >> Marville, do you have any answers on double staffing? So the double the purpose so the the reasoning for the double staffing was when an employee came back with an injury and we did not want them doing any heavy work and I would have to ask because I it's none of my business. Um, I'd have to ask if that employee is still on what would be limited duty and it was an off job off the job injury that we don't want them injured on the job. So that >> understand but that's I I will ask that of Natalie. I don't know. Yeah back to not double staffing and that in my opinion would be the number we're using for next year. >> Go ahead. Council member, >> Council Member Rainbow, in in the job description for the part-time staff that man the >> I to be honest, Mr. Council Member Glazer, I don't know. I don't remember seeing the job description. >> I I I guess I'd like an answer to that question because >> I think it should be because of the nature of the Yeah. And I'm not Yeah, we had we had that in last week's council meeting. I I will look at that. Um I I just know that we had a good employee and you know, we're trying to work around that. Um again, that's not a job that we get a lot of applications for. And so if you have somebody willing to work there, we tried to work around it. >> Customer's point is really important. >> Yes. And I dive my there >> because the increase may not be justified if we get back to normal. >> Call it normal hours, whatever the case is. >> Good point. >> Mayor, members of the council, mine is a projection based on what has already been >> drop down to paid insurance health. I mean there's a 537% increase on that >> that Mr. Mayor, members of the council, um Dillia is actually a full-time employee and so part of her health insurance will be charged >> formula on your spreadsheet that when you start adding part-time or full-time staff into a category, it's automatically adding in that percentage of their benefits and all that other stuff in >> into the category as well. Right. >> That's correct. Yeah, >> Mr. Mayor, >> um the majority of our staffing costs are covered in in the um in the grant. So, um and I did a 2024 I have my sheet for deal and I work over in 2025. And in 2024, we had a $12,91241 profit in the recycling center. >> 2024. >> In 2024. Yeah. And now we've just finished. Julia has just finished both the reimbursement request uh grant and the tonnage grant. She just sent that in this morning. Um so now that those numbers are cemented, we can work on the 2025 to see where we are at this. >> Right now it's projected to be >> and it it it it and it it's very possible. It depends on how much um product we take out, what we make, what we get in revenues for it, and based on what we have in expenses. >> And again, it's market driven, we can stop taking plastics that I mean that >> personally I'm a recycler, so I'm not advocating for getting rid of the recycling, right? No, >> I'm I'm uh I'm looking for a solution to something that's losing money >> and and it I think in 24 we had it projected as losing and we ended up having a profit. >> So I >> So we can encourage residents to bring in more steel and less plastic. >> Lot of cardboard. >> Cardboard we make money on cardboard. >> That's where >> I think that's kind of what we get at because the talk has already been the talks it's came up before. Do we separate out copper? Obviously that's got has more value than >> and time to separate that into a separate bin in in some way shape or form because the revenue for that is >> a lot a lot >> right. Exactly. So but a lot of the copper is just going in with everything else. Um same with um I don't know the technical term but um the rotors is a special type of steel that pays more. one time I think I think it was over their number one plastics because the cost the separately because that was at a higher cost or or looking at the wet packs because instead separating that out from the cardboard because that was a higher higher cost instead of just the card >> are running into the red we should be theoretically not running in the right >> good thing is they are they are looking at cost now and that's one thing is Um I don't know that it was being actively done all the time. Now Adillian being on is being actively done and they're looking and they're talking on costs because we have other residents from other cities dropping off. So I think it's one that we can continue. I agree with council member Glacier that I'm an active recycler and I've been there multiple times. I love it. >> And and I would just say that councils in the past and each council has can make their own decisions um but in the past the council has um agreed that it's a value to the residents and they were willing to assume a deficit um because of the the amenity that it provided for residents. And for public works, you find a lot less tires in the in the ditch, you know, different things like that. the illegal dumping. But that's I mean if council wants to make a change that's a proprietary council. The previous council had said we're going to if we have to do a deficit we'll we'll they were comfortable with that you know 10 to 12,000 deficit >> almost at 8:00. Is there any other ones that we should cover >> if we can quickly cover debt services. Um Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, the fire engine debt is is completed. That's that's been done for for several years. The last payment was in 2023 and then the 2019A improvement bonds. You can see there we have a levy of 64,500 for um the improvement debt along with uh special assessments and they transfer in to help pay for future debt service payments in this one again. The um levy is uh 2021 a improvement bonds. >> Oh, sorry. >> Thank you for the next page already. Got it. >> And then uh that that's uh 2322 for a levy, 54,000 in special assessments, and 155,000 being transferred in to pay for That's where the transfers are going. new bond issue 2025A which we will be back in August at the August um council meeting uh ad valerum taxes are 146 and bond interest for that year is only $50,000 always have to levy a year in advance at February of That's it really for bond for bonds. I don't know if anybody >> go ahead. I was under given the impression that the the tanker that we are waiting to receive. >> You're told go ahead. >> We don't receive that uh rebate annually. It was a percentage that was put on that they would reduce the amount that we owed at the end of the at I think what we will owe will only be like $11,000 and the actual cost was going to be you know $50,000 and so it it'll net the the invoice. >> So it was a onetime reduction because we had already paid for this and we waited >> and waited and waited. >> Yes. >> Earning interest on the money that we gave them. We're earning interest on the money that we paid. for the down payment. >> Yes, >> it's not here yet. I thought it was here in July. >> No, it's in Minnesota. So, >> there any other questions for tonight. >> Oh, Mr. Mayor, >> council member Ryan, >> I just wanted to point out that there is um because it came up in discussion tonight um that I don't know if we want to talk about it later is that right now the building improvement fund has is projected to have a balance of $267,000. Um, and then there's a expense of build $50,000 building study and then a $61,000 council chamber remodel. Um, time to bring that up or not or it's something to bring up at the next meeting, but that seems like a lot to do, a lot of money to spend that um, theoretically can be saved to be used or transferred to be used for something else. And there was a comment made about the equipment replacement fund that right now we're projected to have 125,000 uh in our equipment replacement fund >> at the end of this year. >> So want to make those comments >> that's going to be a key point of discussion when we talk about building improvements going on. >> Yeah. Cuz I got to tell you I don't I personally don't see us building a chamber in here. I mean, it's a multi-use building, but I'd love to make sure we take care of the walls >> so we don't have so many holes in them. >> Something like that. So, we're very cost effective with our dollars. Yep. I agree. All right. Anything else for tonight, guys? I don't know. I hit the wall. They like hit 8 o'clock and I hit the wall. So, you guys are good. Anybody would like uh Mr. Counc. >> All right. Thank you very much.