It's highly organized. >> Big crab. >> We all have to clean it up tonight. There's people using it this weekend. I'm not having the guys back to it. [clears throat] There you go. >> Can't you close that one or not? >> There you go. How's >> that? Yep. Everybody ready? >> So, today is November 26. Good evening. And we're going to start with the pledge of allegiance. >> I [clears throat] pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Johnson, roll call, please. >> Mayor G >> here. >> Council member Bryant >> here. >> Council member Glazer >> here. >> Council member Randall >> here. Council member Swenson >> here. >> Uh financial consultant Jagger >> here. >> And myself, Natalie Johnson. >> All so we'll discuss approving the agenda. Is there any amendments to the agenda? >> Mr. Mayor, go ahead. Um I'm not sure why the the public hearing isn't was included in this meeting. According to my um tax property tax statement um that I received I don't know the last 10 to 14 days. It's scheduled for December 9th at our regular counc. >> That is correct. It was just an error. Um, somebody didn't quite understand when we had to send a public notice to the paper. >> She thought it was this one. So, >> so it is an error. Um, if we wanted to do a open form, we could do that. If anybody was here, you could switch it to that. But recommendation to remove. >> Yes, please. Okay. So, first one, um, request is to remove public hearing line. Is there any other changes to the agenda, >> Mr. Mayor Council, >> if there are no other changes, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as amended. >> Second. >> Perfect. Let's [clears throat] move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Um oppose. Motion carries. Okay. Agenda is approved. Remember why number two is done. >> So, we'll go on to uh right to number three since we uh crossed out number two. >> Okay. >> And uh let's discuss the proposed 2026 budget. So, Mander, if you take it away. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. The last time we met was September 3rd regarding the um budget, the proposed 26 budget. And since then, a few changes have been implemented to that budget. Um I I listed them on the memo. I'll just quickly um read those changes. The um the new weather siren was a proposed board review and salary increases were decreased from 5 to 4%. and I've included those adjustments in the new budget. And since that time, I've also made some changes to revenues. Um I reduced the building permit budget by $10,000. Um the the what I'm seeing is there's not as a lot as much activity there. And so I don't want to overbudget for that and have it not come in. And that's really what's happened in in 2025. Um the tower lease revenues however are going up. There's a new contract amount. So I increased that. Um I made a slight increase in the fines and fees. I did reduce the interest earnings. We're not earning as much as uh I was hopeful or the the economy now is is seeing a little bit of a decrease in the interest earning rates. Um they increased transfers from capital to assist in code enforcement $30,000 and they reduced the fund balance use by 21,515. So a total adjustment to revenues of 7130. The expenditures are also listed there. and the um expenditures. We had a $15,220 reduction in salaries and it was it was what I mentioned before the the the change from four to 5% from 5 to 4% um reducing the COLA and then we um shared the new lead cost with employees and we also reduced it to 66 from 88 because the 66 is what you you'll pay because you're a small city and so your cost is only going to 33% rather than the original budget was at8 and that saved you $3,600. I adjusted some part-time uh wages to reflect the new hire because of the the wage that they're earning. So, it went down by $1,300. I corrected the health insurance and public works by four grand. And then you can see here a reduced uh supplies in the council and um reduction in printing and utility services increase slightly for um rental and and for administrative rental equipment um increase 1580 for planning and zoning for code enforcement. The largest increase was the 20,460 for capital um capital outlay and that was for for fire and also for the um I reduced the fire one because they're actually going to spend it in 25 because they had enough budget to do that. But the fi the siren actually is $40,460 instead of the original we thought was going to be um 20,000 and the actual siren cost is 40,000. So I changed that and I eliminated the contingency budget. So I also made adjustments to expenditures by 7130 and that's a lot of numbers. So, you know, we can go through the actual budget itself, but overall um because of the positive issuance of our debt, we I was able to reduce the debt levy and that o decreases the overall levy. So the debt levy decreased by 8724 and um the new levy increase is only 2 uh 3 203,42021 and that reflects a general operation levy increase of 17,515 and the increase to the debt levy of 185,906. six. Overall, I think that the average taxpayer will see less than $7 a month increase, but it's based on your actual market value. So, I saw that um Ken had brought in his his estimated how is that reflected in can I ask you how it looked? >> And you don't have to tell us either. [laughter] >> Yeah. Uh, so for you're asking what the city portion increase was for >> just the percentage if you can give me the percentage. >> Um, it looks like Oh, a percentage. >> Yeah. Oh, it doesn't give you the percent on the Oh, it doesn't. Okay. >> Mine with Henipin County does the percentage. So, >> wait, who's figuring that out? I do have a question. >> Uhu. Um, so under total adjustments to revenues is 7130. >> Yeah. >> And total adjustment to expenditures was 7130. Did that just happen to be the same or is that >> No, I made sure it was the same. >> It has to balance. >> Yeah, it has to balance. >> Thank you. >> And that the thing that would change the most would be the the use of fund balance. That would be our number that I Thank you. >> I change or adjust. So >> So uh based on proposed for 2026, it's a 9.14%. >> Okay. [clears throat] Yep. That's that's what I'm thinking too because I think that's in what I reflected in the um from the last page in this report. Let's see. It was it I have 8.6. Yeah. So, it's kind of close. Not right on. But mine reflects the deduction of the the debt levy and that does not. >> So, it will go down a little. It won't be the 9.1. It'll probably be the 8.6. just one statement and so as you're looking at shifting expenditures and um revenues you're looking at the two the one thing I'm just concerned with is right now is eliminating the contingency debt. Now you did it to make all the numbers work. >> Yes, I did. >> Um it's just a concern. >> Yep. and I can add it back in. And what it does is is it'll show using more fund balance. >> And if you don't use it, then you don't use the fund balance. But a contingency budget is there specifically in case something happens. >> Yeah. >> That you really want to need or want to use that for. And so generally speaking, I would always leave in a contingency budget. >> That's my concern. Whenever I do projects at work, I I put a contingency I think it's important just you have some amount of reserve money that can be spent if you >> Yeah. >> Whether it be you can't pay for a call or whatever the case is, >> right? >> Or something breaks. I know we have a maintenance fund. I don't have it, but contingency fund of $10,000 is a nice piece that the goal is to never use it, >> but it's sitting there >> and I can add it back in. >> So, it's a concern right now and we'll let the rest of the council members. Um, so I'm not saying you have to add them back in, but just I think it's a point that we bring back up after we >> Okay. >> And then the the other funds, just a general summary, there were no no changes since since September in our gambling fund. Um, we did increase our revenues in the county recycling fund. That was really good news, Mary. Nice job. So now we have uh we're losing less money there than we were originally. Um the county what did they give us an extra >> $15,972? >> Yeah. So >> more >> awesome. >> So you just made the statement that we're losing less. I thought that put us actually in the positive. >> No, >> still did not. Not yet. >> So one of the things that's hard with the recycling budget is that if you look at today's numbers um our revenues. So we have not yet received from the county any of our 25 revenues from we have completed the reports. Um Sue has audited them um along with other functions has been behind and emailed her and said that we um would like to know when that is coming through and we should be able to get that by mid December and that first half is $27,000. gives us a remaining balance of $22,614. Um that 1595,000 is next year. So for this year, we've got 22 remaining. Um >> Sue did tell Dileia if she gets her numbers in really early, hopefully we can get them that paid out quickly in six for the remainder of the 25. >> Well, A couple things. One, I'm just trying First off, this where we included the weather siren, but we're actually buying this actual siren part this year. >> Not that I know of. >> That's what we had in the budget under the >> right, but that's not no longer in the budget. Uh, according to the last meeting that we had, it was there was a discussion about whether or not you actually wanted to do that. And because the fire fire department is at their will be at their their budget this year, um I moved it to 26 >> which I think makes sense because buying it you got to sit for 6 months because you can't install >> right. So it's not in the budget. It was under the siren was under general government and it's not there anymore. in 25 it is now in 26. >> It's back to a budget item. >> It's 40,000. >> Do you have anything else? >> Um then you know I I was just going through the the budget that we had that I that we had for last meeting. Do we I would just you know if we're saying we're trying to come up with a little extra cash or money and I I know this all goes to the sheriff's department but looking at the gambling contribution I'm just wondering if you know I have a feeling we could find $10,000 if we need to put the contingency fund back and not that and this is for the sheriff's department but since we budget since we budgeted for 35 but we but for the last three years we've gotten 6441 and 41 $41,000. Do we want that to almost be another couple thousand? So, in the gambling fund, the original 64,000 was because we transferred money from the general fund. >> Okay? >> And so, our our average revenues here are 32,000, 38,000, and 39,000. >> And I budgeted 35,000 for 2026. uh and transferring $50,000 out with a remaining fund balance of $33,000. And yes, you could use that money. What it does is that'll it'll reduce future transfers into the general fund because right now I'm still transferring money from this fund at more than what it's taking in in the future. And so that what that would do is it would just reduce what we can transfer in in the future compared to now. If we're trying to basically kind of been saying that that's been to help us at the sheriff's department, I don't know that we necessarily need to believe 30,000 $34,000. >> But that means in 27 you'll only have $30,000 to transfer or 35,000 instead of 50. And that's what I was planning on transferring. So that means in 27 you'll be using more fund balance than what I mean. It's all it all ends up using fund balance in it eventually. If if you want to use that, you can. >> Can I ask question? So, we talked we put it in contingency in budget just like we were saying here with with the revenue from from Ging. What if he didn't have a contingency if we still if he needs something even though it's not budgeted? Can we still use general funds to purchase it? Yes, you just have to come back and meet prior to doing that unless it's an emergency and then you can go ahead. >> And that's kind of the thing. I mean, it's almost like the contingencies there if you need. >> That's right. >> That's kind of why took it out in the first place because we had that discussion on that very [clears throat] >> So maybe it's not needed. >> Are you good? We don't have >> I I think the the money is is is there. It's a matter of where's it sitting. >> So, it's just a matter of then, you know, council coming back together and saying got this situation that considering >> we haven't used it this year. We only at least as I'm understanding we only spent,00 of it the year before. That was part to do the banyion upgrade. Was that right, >> Natalie? >> Did we take some of the contingency to pay for that >> extra module that we needed for planning and zoning or for >> Yeah. >> And then we did. So, >> good thing our council was able to usually come together. And then maybe as a a bigger picture, you know, if you think of it broader, in a normal tax year or a normal budget year, you wouldn't be using fund balance to pay for operations. And so if you levy for a contingency, that money would go into your fund balance. And so I would recommend always levying a little bit at least for contingency so that money [clears throat] starts to build up your fund balance. And I think that's you know it's a it's a nice way to to build up fund balance rather than using it. Um but this year you're using fund balance contingency really isn't >> I'm comfortable we don't put in good discussion. So thank you. Is there is there any difference in like the logistics of spending the money if it's in contingency versus general fund? I mean either way the concepts to prove it. Right. >> Right. Natalie would come and and recommend using contingency funds or or she would have to say we need to do this and where do you want me to take the money from? And then I would recommend where any questions from M at this point? So, it looks like the summary portion is complete. Um, are you going to go um >> page by page? A few things highlighted. >> Yeah, that's completely up to you. I can certainly go page by page. I >> I think that's what our intent was when we uh we kind of sheld it earlier this year is to come back >> line by line anywhere there's an opportunity. Um, please bring it up on what you would like to discuss. >> So, on like page four, give an example. You've got the $115,000. >> I reduced that and I mentioned that earlier. So I I reduced it down to where it was previously. You can see in previous years back in 23 it was 113 and then 24 we had a little bump and now this year I'm at 89. And so I I felt more comfortable meeting it at 115 and open it up. So I I changed that. That's the And then the tower lease payments are going up. The contract went up and so that revenue went up. Um interest income I changed. I went from $50,000 down to 45. Um and then the transfer in that's the $30,000 coming from capital to help pay for the code enforcement. >> Just quick, you said you went from 50 to 45. >> Yeah. >> Under a proposed for 2026. Are you still on page four? >> No, I'm sorry. I'm >> you're >> I'm running right along. [laughter] >> Maybe we can stick with page four at the moment. >> Okay. Any questions on page four? >> Let's ask that question. You lost me on some of that. >> Okay. And the green highlighted uh side is the difference between what I'm projecting in 25 and what we're proposing for budget in 26. I think that's where Matty's comes in all this. Correct. It's not in there. >> So, Mr. Mayor, I went and council I went through all of the invoices today and took the expenditure guideline and tried to let you know what was left to pay. Um, the last page is the journal entries that are come just like your claims. So, those are the ones that are already in the system and ready to go. anything handwritten um like in public works is my writing to tell you what is not made that I know we have invoices for or I know it's coming and we're still talking revenues right now so that's an expense that those are expend okay are there any questions on page four of the revenues so page five if I can keep moving I highlighted the tower lease payments. Those went up. Page five. And also the interest income went down and the transfer in went from 50,000 to 80,000. And that's $30,000 coming from the capital fund for the uh code enforcement. And so and the number that changes in all of these items is the use of fund balance. that that's the the balance that you have to balance your your your revenues and expenditures. So if revenues go up, use of fund balance goes down. If revenues go down, use and so forth. If expenditures go up, use of fund balance goes up because you can't decrease or you can't increase the leverage. You can decrease it. You can't increase it. >> Is there any questions on page five [clears throat] >> or for revenues? >> So then uh going on moving on to expenditures then we have the city council and I did take out the uh $200 I think that was in there for um I believe computer equipment or something. >> You're on page six right now. >> Yep. I'm on page six. Any questions uh regarding or any comments regarding the council budgets like just about no change across the board, >> right? Any questions on page six? Hearing none, page seven. On page seven, then we have the changes that I mentioned earlier for um all the salary items um part-time, paid health, everything was adjusted slightly here. >> Like all going down. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So you get the medic >> everything went down. Yes. Slightly. And then I also reduced uh office supplies and general supplies. I believe that's part and then rental equipment actually went up. We had 7500 in there and it's should be 8675. >> The copy, right? >> Yeah. >> And the question >> it's a copy machine. Is it this entire cost? It's just in cost >> the water you said. >> I Yeah, >> I think that's in general government. >> Yeah, I think it's in general. >> Yeah, the fire department has one too. >> Yeah. >> So, are there any questions regarding office administration? >> Any questions? I don't think so. >> Screw CJ. Oh, hold on. I seem to recall something um from your memo where you said you took some wage dollars out, but they would have to be put back in. Am I not remembering? >> I I reduced salaries and benefits o overall by $15,220. Um, the only thing when I when Natalie and I discussed is that we were concerned that um there was going to be a needed um new additional health insurance for public works because Joe was leaving and I we don't know if your new employee will have full-time or full benefits or single benefits. Right now, Joe is on Medicare and so it's just a supplemental cost and so I would suggest putting in an additional $12,000 for for that health insurance and that affects using fund balance, but I didn't have anything for administration. >> So, it's a a bridge we can cross later. >> Yeah. Yep. >> [clears throat] >> page page eight is elections. Um, of course you have an election next year. So that's why the there's a difference between this year and next year. Um, finance and assessing really not much change at all there. um legal quite a bit of change. I don't know, you know. >> Can I ask on that one? I think that's really important to talk about code enforcement. You just said we were going to transfer $30,000 in code enforcement, but looking here, it shows 5,000. >> Well, that's that's the budget for it. So, I'm transferring money from the capital to help pay for code enforcement, but it doesn't actually go into that line item. It just shows up as a revenue source. >> Okay. >> And then your code enforcement is in separate line items. And you have code enforcement in legal and in planning and zoning and in engineering. >> So those are where your code enforcement dollars are. >> Council may um Jagger. So just to clarify, part of that is the expense to um the planner for rewriting our our ordinances. That's right. We're making payments. >> Yep. >> 2026 and 2027. >> Yes. >> And then that that the $30,000 actually came from a budget uh some money that was budgeted for >> this this chamber. >> Yeah. For the whole town hall. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> So what is our looking at this? It's got for just legal code enforcement got 5,000. What is our overall for coordination? So, one of the key things we talked about this year is we didn't have any we didn't have enough money to do show and code enforcement and we we quickly ran out after one or two residents. >> So, next year you have uh eight $13,000 budgeted for code enforcements. Um and this year you spent about 12,000. So concern was like in May we didn't have any more funding for code enforcement. Okay. To me that's a big thing is okay we're trying to make sure that the codes that we have are are properly enforced. So I don't want to say we quit enforcing we have money to go along with it >> right >> that I would recommend in increasing your legal budget then under code enforcement to the the $10,000 that is in there >> I I don't know that what what historically have we used >> we used $10360 for for just for legal last year >> or this year I'm sorry >> but I think that was consumed by like May also though >> I have Oh, >> well, there were certainly a couple of situations that that chewed up and I our goal is to in this committee that we're part of this simplifying our code so that we it's easier to enforce less costly, easier, make it more straightforward. But just a concern is it does take money to enforce the code and it just seems like we don't even have as much as we had in 2025. >> [snorts] >> at least making this 10,360 would put it back to what it was, which we knew wasn't enough money. >> It'll take us a while to get through that. We got six months through that process of the code side to get it done. So, to say mid 2026, the concern is there just won't be enough. >> Yes, sir. >> Go ahead. the um for Rum River Consultants as well doing some of the no permits being pulled for some properties and such. There will be some for code enforcement in the M River contract, you know, as far as that coming up because we don't have their invoices for October, November, December yet. >> So, Mr. Mayor, when I'm looking at the um the detail for that code enforcement, they're still charging things to that uh in September and October. So, there's going to be two more months of code enforcement activity there. >> So, the projected would go up. >> Well, it's going up. >> I do have the projected up from the the actual. The actual is only 8632 and I'm projecting 10. >> Okay. >> So, you're projecting your people? Yep. November and December. >> So if we had at least 10,000 2026 to me that would seem correct. I know that doesn't give us a ton, but at least gives us we're able to execute and hopefully just as council glazer said hopefully mid year with policies that are updated, ordinances that are updated will be easier and more cost effective to enforce. So, am I directed to increase that budget line item to 10,000? >> Well, right now it's a good discussion point. So, if there's any other council members that would like to get input, >> yeah, I think it makes sense to increase it. I think [clears throat] we should be enforcing our code. So, if lack of funds is an issue this year, which I know it was, it makes sense to >> Would you recommend 10,000? Is that what you recommend? >> Yeah. >> I don't know where the funding's going to come from. So just getting council members >> out of fund balance out of fund balance. >> So it's not going to affect the levy comes out of fund comes out of fund balance. increases your fund balance use >> which is not really what we want to do but >> council that there's theoretically there'll be some money that left over from 25 that we can move into fund balance to offset that >> and as far as I'm projecting there is not going to be >> well yeah I just haven't had time to do the to do the math with the updated numbers But >> it seems like there's unless everything is completely a wash, there's a lot of funds that have extra unspent unspent money in it. So that's if you look at my projection, I'm I'm projecting that we'll use about only about $3,000 is what the total projection is, but uh you know, and obviously that's that could change. I mean that's a small amount $3,500. Uh it's one of those unknowns we just said we had >> right >> we had some difficult situations with some specific residents that required a lot of legal fees >> that could recover >> and we still have some of them that are in the process pending I guess you say that need funding to take care of them to the finish line >> and this the projection that I have there I'm really pretty confident that it's going to be both right there. It'll be >> the 10,000 >> maybe, you know. Well, no, I'm I'm talking overall as far as your total expenditures compared to your total revenues. I'm projecting you're going to use about four grand. You might not use four grand, but you're certainly not going to make, you know, you're not going to come up $20,000 in the positive. You know, it's it's you're you're really pretty close. Marine County going forward if we get our ordinances in good shape >> and and that really is the goal is to keep it under 10 and if we can do better again get ordinances and how they're written is important words matter. Is that enough guidance for you, Matt? >> Yeah, I'll change it to 10. >> Thank you. >> Any objection if you change it to 10? Let me ask that. >> Sounds like we're okay. >> Okay. So, then page uh eight, >> I think we're on nine. >> Nine. You can see there again the the changes in the salary amount there. I highlighted the changes compared to last year, but the the biggest change is that 40,460 for the siren. So that might be something that is discussed. So if if that is going to remain in, I'll leave it there. If you guys are not going to take it out and it's there for the next year, >> I would prefer that we leave it in for the budget and then we're going to have a follow discussion on it. >> Okay? >> Because it's not been voted way to do it. >> Okay. >> And more information. That would be my preference. >> Okay. >> Can't speak for anybody else. >> I agree with that, >> Mr. Mayor. In in the future when council's being asked to consider something like this emergency weather siren in the future, I my request would be that actual numbers are brought to the council before we make a decision. And then when it comes back to us, it's not 3% higher than what was your pol. So I I'd like that to be uh best practice like we talked about in the last meeting. >> So council can make a good decision based on actual data. >> So in this case we're I believe we've got good numbers now. Well, we do now, but it's 33% higher than than when we were having our budget last budget discussion when uh it was $3,000. >> That that absolutely is best practice. So, you know, >> and Mr. Mayor, members of the council, >> agreed. >> This would be something that would have should have been would have should have could have been in the five-year capital improvement plan. So you would have had a lot more time to make sure that you know usually whatever's in the capital improvement plan for 26 is what gets put in the budget for 26. >> That'd be really helpful. >> Yeah. So this would be this is >> there's one more in that same concept and we learned later was this bucket truck for help trippy trees. >> That's not in there. >> That would be one that we can talk about for next year. >> Yes. >> Um sounds like there's a need, but it hasn't ever been addressed. >> Okay, Mr. Mr. Mayor, but we seem to do okay with borrowing hand lakes. equipment, which is something that was agreed upon in the past. That was kind of a countywide thing where where cities were sharing equipment. So, are we going back to looking for a bucket truck? >> I I I'll just bring it up as a point where it got dropped in front of us and then one of the city that's if we're going to do it one, understand the cost. Two, and then we can talk about it. That's what if we can still do that one, that's a good >> I would prefer that. I just don't want to drop it in and say, "Hey, you want to buy this?" And it wasn't our CIP. It's not we've been that that's where I was going because I don't want to go blindsided by anything in number nine. >> Mr. Mayor, [clears throat] >> I would just say on the issue of the siren, um there are times that when we ask our staff um to give us preliminary numbers, they are preliminary numbers. And the numbers we did receive um were best guess best guesses based on previous conversations with other people that had [clears throat] installed sirens um in their in their municipalities. Um, I think that the chief did a good job explaining in his followup email as to why that [cough] why there was a difference. Um, you know, we can public works can come in and say we have a culvert that needs to be replaced. We're going to estimate it $30,000. Um, but when you finally get the bids from the contractors, it could be 50,000. There's got to be some understanding that if we don't ask them to come to a meeting with a final firm bid that it's an estimate. >> Can I clarify on this? So, and there's nothing wrong with providing estimates. That's all we have. If we have the opportunity and we can get quotes that are detailed and we have the information, it's a best practice. That's the difference. >> 100% agree. Some some are going to be estimates. Some are going to be just budgetary. We have the details we added in. So I think it just needs to say this is a budgetary or estimated cost. Um and that's probably I don't remember if that's that's what you did in the beginning or not. [clears throat] >> Great. Anything else for number nine? We will have both of them both. We will have estimated that we can get exactly. >> Okay. Number 10, ma'am. >> Page 10. >> Page 10. >> So code enforcement. Um we're including $6,000 here instead of the $15,000. Um projected spending in 25 is only 1375. Now I don't know if there's going to be additional costs in 26 compared to 25 for code enforcement here out of planning and zoning. >> It's going to make a difference on what we're what are we trying to enforce. There's different items that you know, I've got one right now where the home built a building without a permit too close to the line. >> That's one. There's probably countless others that does in the case where they don't pull a building permit, does it fall under this GL code for >> or under legal? I >> I don't know the answer to this. >> And can that can these funds be shifted around allocated? >> Yes, you can. >> Because We know we ran out of money there, but we had 15 allocated here. >> Yeah, we had Right. >> Right. So, if I don't need to include planner match in some of the questions and I'm just doing with the attorneys to move forward, well then that helps. >> Yeah, >> she's definitely going to be part of multiple these conversations on the PC side. So, >> but to me it looks like ma'am where we said increase the other one. To me, it looks like you should have the ability to pull 5,000 from this one and move it to that one. >> I can certainly do that. >> Well, in this case, you've only projected 6,000 total. I'm sorry. >> No, that's the budget. The projection for this year is 1,375. >> Mhm. But yeah, I was just thinking that we budgeted 15. We took No, you only budgeted six. So, I would probably leave that at six then because that's not that much. >> That's not that much. No. >> And same with engineering. The code enforcement is 2,000 and the actual expenditures are about $830 this year. >> It's probably one where you're not going to be in 2000 is probably okay. We don't seem to have a lot of code this year. It's either planning >> or legal >> from what I've seen. >> Yeah. This little bit that we use for engineering was a site visit. >> Okay. >> And that'll continue especially if they don't have building. So I can see that being increased. >> The increase in the planning and zoning and professional services is for the um the new the 2015 >> comprehensive plan. Yeah. >> Do you have any questions on future? >> And same with the increase in the engineering is also comprehensive. Got page 11. Got a few more pages. >> Yeah, fire management. It was just the other page and that was from the uh the stuff. It's the only change here except for moving that I had originally budgeted the capital equipment to be in 26 and we're actually spending it in 25. So the budget >> trading is going back up to more historical levels from 23 and 24, >> right? >> A lot of things are going down. Um, you look at the difference between the the act the the budgeted and the actual and overall it's only $8,300 is the difference as far as the increase in the budget. >> And that's because we got reimbursed, correct? So I think that you know um and Rob might want to join in here but I what's happening is that you're you know you're working up to having a full staff fire department and your expenditures for that fire department are going to go up um regarding future costs. So you can see there it's gone from 234 and and 24 to 319 and 25 and to 327 and 26 >> the 25. >> So I can answer some I can answer some questions on that. Um Mr. Mayor Council, >> you go ahead. >> Can you hear me? Okay. Um, so we have a so we have the the full-time salary that was in for the full-time fire chief that was taken out because now it's a part-time position. Um, we have some increase in the budget for um training. Um, and so overall that kind of balances out um the increase in training, the the decrease in the full-time salary um and the benefits that were budgeted for that. If that um answers a question for you, >> I was just going to make the statement uh for the 25 budget, the 26 proposed, the $8,000 increase is very very manageable in in my mind for what we're looking at, especially with the training allocation of the additional money that's going to be needed as we're hiring new firefighters. >> Chief, that would be correct. Yeah. >> 40,000 is that going to be enough for training especially if you add three or four more people five more people >> Mr. Ron Council I believe that is going to be adequate. Um uh again we get reimbursement for a lot of our initial training. Um so um what we may spend we will also get back um for that training. Um that is also going to uh uh allow us to put every member of the department through emergency vehicle operations course training um officer training and enhanced online training to give firefighters their work life balance back. >> I was just going to chief this is council member Glazer. Um what so is the the 40,000 some of that will be reimbursed by the state or is is that an in addition to what the the state will provide us for >> Mr. Mayor, Council, uh, Council Member Glazer, it is, uh, reimbursed by the state. So, 40,000 is our overall budget. We can we'll get revenue back, um, as we, um, submit courses. And so, um, we will we should be recouping that or a portion of it, if not a good portion of it, um, depending on what the state allocates for training. >> And, Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I did include uh reimbursement in your intergovernmental revenue in the in the in that portion. So, it's already included as >> So, quick question, Chief or Rory, >> how much did we get back? So, just say we spent this year on training we spent uh your projected is 30 I'll say 31,000. How much did we get back? >> So, right now, and we haven't gotten it all back yet. Um, we should be getting some more back, but I am projecting that you're going to get $26,000 back out of that 30. >> So, you're getting like 80% back. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> That's awesome. >> Well, we have to remember that they go July to June, let's see, July to July. Isn't that right? >> Right. But that doesn't matter. >> No, we acrew. Yeah, they approve for any So, Anybody else have any questions for the chief? All right, page 11 complete, man. Page 12. >> Thanks, chief. You >> okay? Page 12. Um, reducing the the professional services here, but I haven't changed the budget since the previous budget. This is building inspections less activity than 25. >> Any questions on page 12? >> Hey, page 13. More busier. >> Public works and and so um the other pay was that le stuff and the health insurance. We reduced it down to 28. This is where I think we need increase this budget by $12,000 because Joe's um put in his resignation and we will be hiring a new person. I really don't know what kind of insurance coverage they're going to need, but if they need family coverage, it'll be an extra $12,000 for the city. >> I recommend it hasn't came up. We haven't voted on that. So my recommendation is put $12,000 in there so we at least cover our worst case scenario. >> Okay. >> And if it's something less than great, but >> then we can cross our bridge when we do that. >> Yeah. And that just means more fund balance then. So far when I'm adding 20 uh no 125 $17,000 to the fund balance to the to the fund balance using fund balance. So um any qu any other questions on page 12 Jagger. Um so should we not increase the life insurance long-term short-term disability? Um if if we are what we're going to hire somebody, right? >> If it's full-time, >> they already have like Joel already has all those items, but each of his insurance, his health insurance is really >> Okay. So that's the only one that's okay. Could be less if part time. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. But that's >> Yeah, it was just his insurance that doesn't matter. >> Question, Council Member. Um, I know we discussed this last time with lubricants. I think Joe said that the costs were much higher one year. He sort of loaded up, right? >> And I I don't recall what we said about this upcoming year. Is his supply running low? Is $7,000 too much budgeted there or is that just right for this year? [laughter] >> I know. We just got a load. So >> that's a lot of lubricants for $7,000. >> Yeah. But >> okay, it was 1674 is what we still owe >> right now. >> So total of $3,000 in basically in 2025. >> So if you look at this here, they use 15,000 2023. It's like they carried a big inventory level and then they've been slower. So, this is something that we could probably level >> and figure out determine what we want for the lubricants and then as it gets slow you would punish one piece instead of doing this. I don't want to ever spend $14,000 on lubricants at one time. I think we could probably do that or better. That would be my recommendation. >> I mean, unless there's a bulk savings that's significant, but I doubt that >> there is, but there not that much. But you don't want sitting around for three years. That's true. >> Um, ma'am, can I bring up the point on uh we've got a big line item here now. I just lost it. So, it's on repairs and maintenance. >> Yeah. >> Uh, this is like really really big for >> 23 24 is very manageable. And then we hit 25, >> right? >> And it's like sixfold. >> Yep. >> Oh, I shouldn't say sixfold. Uh, fourfold. >> But what we've got projected is about 18. >> What we have budget for is 18. So what that that um let me look and see here are the details. >> Well, one of them was a really big fix on the um greater dump truck. I know we have some more repairs coming up to >> my concern is that's not enough to cover. >> So either we weren't doing repairs. >> So we had uh it was fix the dump truck steering and transmission. Um some of their big repairs. Let's see. John Deere tractor engine repair, that was 13,000. You had uh birch lane tree removal, that was five grand. Um coupler track, coupler and track as as bars, that was four grand. Uh uh hydro cylinder was three grand. >> Can I give a quick summary? There's a lot of things that will drive on repaint repair maintenance. When you have equipment, you have to have an allocation to repair that equipment. >> To me, 18,000 doesn't even seem like it should be in the ballpark. >> One transmission and repair service could be 10 $15,000. >> So, my recommend this recommendation that this should almost be doubled at this point. >> Now, whether we do it or don't do it, we're paying for it. It's just whether you budget or not is really what I'm seeing, >> right? >> Because we're way over budget on that. [snorts] Yeah. >> Now, do we still need to repair our equipment? The answer is yes. >> Yeah. >> But it's a recommendation by myself. I don't know if anybody else agrees with that, >> but I'm just comparing it to my work experience in repairs equipment is expensive. >> Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. >> None of our equipment is getting any younger. >> There's a couple pieces are none of us getting younger yet. >> Yeah, they're not getting younger. Got some newer pieces there, but >> we have some newer things, but everything is like we all are. We age every year a year. >> I'm not [laughter] I can tell you a hard time getting out of this chair tonight. [laughter] >> I do agree. [clears throat] >> Yeah, I so I I agree because um we need to maintain our equipment. I also think too is that [cough] with Joe's retirement, Joe has throughout his time with the city saved the city money by being able to make repairs on his own and we just have this the supply. I don't know if we'll have that level of expertise of repairing equipment with um the existing staff. And that and that's not being disrespectful to the staff. It's just that was Joe's forte. He really knew how to take care of equipment and and and did and saved us money. So I think we have to think about that may have additional costs >> on that note. Can that be um something that in the hiring process that we look for some heavy equipment maintenance experience? >> I believe it's >> it might not be under the required but it could be under the recommend >> preferred preferred. Thank you. Yeah, I think that'd be great. >> Mer, >> unless anybody else wants to volunteer some time to help with >> I mean I've got a little bit of hydraulic. >> You don't want me fixing [laughter] >> um and I think it's a it's a valid point, but it's I think the challenge we have is well if we keep making adjustments now we're using more fun. we can leave it as it is and we can just note it for next year that >> leave it as it is and >> I'm fine with that because at the end of the day we're going to pay for it anyway. >> It's just it's one of the concerns is we're way high this year. >> That's true. I you know I initially thought that too when you guys said it a couple minutes ago but then I was thinking it through and I I think if if we're projecting or you know guessing that it's going to be more than 18,000 I I think with a new guy in the shop hopefully and you know getting those guys working together. It'd be nice if they had an actual budget, a realistic budget to play with or not play with, but actually maintain their equipment rather than shooting, you know, for this sort of 18,000 that we're all sort of expecting them to blow past and then come ask us for more. It just seems like it might delay necessary maintenance or or something like that. I don't know. I I just think if we're thinking it's going to cost more than that, I think it makes sense to put it in the budget even if it ultimately comes from general quantity. Here's what I I recommend and and I I agree with both of you guys because it's okay, but I would really like to see on the maintenance side. If you look take a look at our equipment and break it down and see these are the recommended services that are should be happening and we can put an estimated cost and this is a perfect project for for one of the public works people and they give me an estimated maintenance cost. This is what I think of now. It doesn't cover things that are unforeseen, but just from a schedule maintenance side, we should have a projected cost that might be 18,000. Then you're not covering breaks. So I could see it both ways. How I would like to do it is that right there is they get a sign to say this is what is your recommended. Hey, you still have to do these preventive maintenances, which I I'm pretty sure pretty sure it's going to cost about 18,000. And I shouldn't say I'm pretty sure, but it could very well come to that. that is all breakdowns then this might need to be tripled like like this year because if you're delaying maintenance and not doing it that's even worse cost you more money down the road >> and Mr. Premier >> I know that they watch these numbers and you know Eric will tell me well we don't have any more money in that one so I can't spend it. So if we only have the 18,000 in there I mean this year we had some I mean really big expenses that had to be fixed >> um and unexpected. But >> did you just take that note? Um yep I got it. >> We would that is really really critical. We we can't fix it right now. We can budget more money, but we can't fix that until they come out with projected, but if we're delaying maintenance, that's the worst thing we can possibly do. >> Yeah, you can delay it by a day and delay by a week. But if you're like, "Hey, I don't have any money, so I'm just going to wait to to do this three or four months down the road." That's really bad. >> And I think Joe was just very proud of never going over his budgets or line items because he didn't like the feeling, I guess. I don't know. He tried really hard to stay within and we kept telling him, "Please just look at your bottom number. I need to put stuff where it goes instead of, you know, if it was for this." And he would say, "Well, put it against this because there's money in that one." >> No. [laughter] And put it where it belongs so that we have a real picture. >> Yes. Exactly. >> Correct. >> And that's what happened this year. That's why we're at 39,000. >> Any other recommendations on what to do? >> Go to 25. whatever is >> I mean you're right it's hard if we don't know what is the actual like bare minimum maintenance you know projecting beyond that we're all just sort of guessing so >> who knows so that 59 is probably the most realist we could have had more catastrophic breakdowns that cost more money this year in the past >> Mr. I think we need to leave it where it is. We had a budget. We had it in place. We have we always talked about not money that we have to control what we're using for where we're pulling from fund balance. And yes, we can always get our estimates better and and maybe that's something that we can we can look into and and work on for budgeting next year. I mean, if we're saying we don't have enough money in maintenance, well, then we need to be more realistic in our budgeting process and get so that we have more exact numbers so that we can take take that into account as we're planning going forward. Right now, we just need to leave it where it is and and if we we can always make adjustments if we need to down in the future because we've done that in the past that we have to make an adjustment to the budget, we make an adjustment to the budget, but we just don't know. And and I I just if we just keep pulling from fun balance then you know it it just then eventually it will be gone and now then we're keep we said we wanted to be at a certain point and not go below. I don't know where we're at and I don't need to know right now but I just think as far as if there's any more fine tuning we just need to kind of if we're not we know we can't go higher. So let's just kind of leave it where it is and use that knowledge going forward as a lesson learned as we're planning for next year. >> [clears throat] >> So everybody okay if we just shuffle these as a list and come back next year. >> Okay. Point taken. Thank you very much >> Natalie. >> Yes. >> So just like you did putting it in the right allocation that's really important going forward. So we come back here next year. We know that we have to shift more funding and we got to give somewhere else. >> Great. >> Okay. Thank you. One more item for public works that um we Natalie and I looked at you know we haven't had a lot of snow and that's why your part-time has been really low in 23 and 24 or 24 and 25. If you look at 23 your parttime was $23,000. >> Oh wow. >> And so I'm recommending that this year you increase that part-time to to 18,000 from 9400. So it's already said that this falls in line with exactly what we talked about and >> is it's just coming from fund balance. >> Yeah. But it's your you know you don't want to go over your budget overall and and generally speaking the city of Nland well always the city of Nland is under budget overall for the general fund. But if you get your budget so tight and so close to what you actually are spending, you have the but you you do have the risk of going over your legal budget. And your legal budget is what you adopt. And if you need to increase that budget, you need to have revenues that also come in to increase that budget. And you can't just use fund balance all the time. And so in the past, you've been able to use fund balance because or you've been able to use budget because you've had the excess budget there to use. Now, if this budget is so tight that if you have some extra costs that you're going to run into, you're going to go over your legal budget. >> I just wish we had had these conversations in one July. >> Yeah. >> That that's the piece that I'm I'm lacking the perspective on because I've not done this. >> Sure. >> Is that piece right there. >> Yeah. is yeah, you get two years worth no snow. Now we're looking and say, you know what, they're projecting more snow, >> but that's like a $20,000 delta between between the numbers here. >> It's at least n at least $9,000 more than what what you have in there. >> And that's why we recommend that you increase that by $9,000. So the budget is there if you need it. And that was that's the same thing behind a contingency budget. The the budget is there >> for you to spend if you but if you go over your budget in your general fund that is your your legal budget. One way to go over is to have additional revenues that you didn't budget for. >> That'd be a great great option. >> Yeah. >> I don't think that's going to happen. >> Not this year. It's not happening. trust the share. You keep saying legal budget. Would you please? >> So the the budget that you adopt for your general fund is your legal budget. So the bottom line is you want to stay within that legal budget because that's what you're telling your residents that's this is what we're going to spend in a given year. If it so happens, you know, that you have an emergency or something like that that comes up, then you go ahead and and spend that money. Snow plowing isn't an emergency, you should be planning for that that expense. And that's also why you have a contingency budget so that if some small thing comes up that you need to do that you didn't plan for and it's not an emergency, you have that contingency to use and and and you can use funds. You can use your fund balance for situations like that. >> As long as it's planned for and put in the budget. >> Yes. as long as you plan for something to to put in the budget. So that's why I recommend increasing your part-time to 18,000 versus the 9,400 >> and you don't have to spend it if it if >> we move it to 15,000. So it's kind of like in between, but it's more money. If you have to spend it, it's within there. So you got a busy snow year, we might go over, but we're going to go over by a lot less than 9,400. >> Right. So we >> So in 23 you spent $23,000 part time, >> you know. >> Now would we spend less than part time, Natalie? Uh going with the proposal and you've got um a resolution right here in front of us. That's considered part time. So that funding would come out of that. >> It does. >> That would come out of there. it would come out of there, but um depending upon what we do at the next position, you're we're going to lose Joe. And so you still need the other CDL, which could be Isaac, but then you're still going to need that fourth person because we have two people running big trucks and two people small running the small trucks. And the small trucks take care of all the culde-sacs and the smaller areas in the city, parking lots and such. And the big trucks do the roads. >> Here's my recommendation. move her up to 15,000. That's what I think. >> Any other input on that, >> House members? At least it moves us in the right direction. >> Okay. >> 15,000. >> Objections. Anybody? >> We need to build at least. >> Anything else on page 13? Okay, working grading school certificate. Okay, so um I'm sorry. Um the the classes for getting certified for um skin steer and all equipment and your grading school. The schools the classes are $1,100 a piece. $1,100 for grading school and skid steer training. [clears throat] >> The $1,100 is for skips here only and someone comes out, they will certify three to four of our employees then on the skids here that we have. >> So part of this would be for the safety aspect of it >> and the liability. >> And right now you only have $350 in training of course. Is this something that has to happen on an annual basis or >> this is something that has never happened? And so I believe that all of our public works for the liability of the city should get certified. They should be doing the snowplow um class every couple of years. They should be getting the grading. Um I want to go to the grading school and get the operation certificate on my grader. They should be getting certified on the skid steer once. I don't think they need to do that again. But basically, I'm just trying to get them to take the liability off the city, meaning that we did train them to do things the right way. >> Well, it doesn't entirely remove the liability from the city, but um >> would it um would this potentially decrease our premiums for work comp and liability insurance? >> Um I had a email into our company for that and I haven't heard back yet. I mean I think it's a good idea just for the sake of itself getting better grading better work safer work um but yeah there's a potential to save insurance money too >> that be added bonus I don't say count but nice bonus >> so this would change your your budget for training from $350 to 6500 basically500 >> [snorts] >> because there's three staff members. There will be there will right now be two. >> Yeah. Proposed in 2026. Right now it's just 350. >> Right. >> You're saying to do those trainings we just went talked about >> be another 66. It's $6,600 and you subtract the the 350. So it would be another $6,300. I think it makes sense to bump up that number to get that necessary training. >> Well, and this has been a topic that the mayor and I have talked about quite a bit, which is about getting everybody trained. >> I know that council requirement typically it's like every three years or something like that. I thought the skid steer was probably lifetime. I don't think that you were address but it's the snow plowing and some of the others that I would like them to do. They and they agreed because um Isaac had thought that it was an awesome and you get your sight lines really well. Um, so he thought every two to three years it would be good to go back just to get it because then you're using the truck and you get familiar with your sight lines again and every all of the maintenance >> maintenance. But what was the proposal for training and how did it affect what we >> So an additional um $6,300 would be added. So it would go up to 6600. >> So we go back to that list because it was the >> only 1100. >> Yeah. show. >> It's $1,100 for someone to come out. >> There was that um organizational one for the shop that we talked about. >> That was $700 a person for that. >> Oh, I I missed that. >> And then this one. So, it is a little bit higher than what I have to say. >> Um the grading school, we're taking a guess of the $1,100 because I've not been able to actually get a quote or find one that's open. So then it would be 1100. >> I can speak to the organizational one just real briefly. If you go look at our shop, our public works um one I get safety concerns and a lot of it's due to organization not being labeled capacity on shelves. So it's a lot of safety and organization related. Um so that's what that horses up there. [clears throat] So then I would recommend adding $8,700 to this training. >> So we're on page 13 and item under training. >> Yep. >> And it currently is $350. >> Yep. And I would recommend adding $8,400 to it. >> M. [clears throat] So, can we look at the other public works and and and take out a thousand dollars here and there and move that down to training like general supplies or um >> you know other things or elsewhere in the budget so that come up with come up with the amount for training. Then the question is where? >> So >> lubricants [laughter] patchwork, patchwork, general supplies. I mean, I understand where we're at, but I mean, if we're if we're if we can, again, my point originally, if we keep adding and adding, there's got to there's got to be something that we can fine-tune. If if these things are a higher priority than what we've already talked about previously in budget sessions, then we should be able to offset the cost somewhere. >> Can I ask him uh patchwork? So, it looks like 2025 we we rarely consumed all of it. Can we take $5,000 from patchwork, move it down there? >> Yeah, it's just a matter of how many complaints we get with the folds and the streets. >> Good. We'll take half of that. >> Okay. >> But we haven't hit the 10,000. That's what you got proposed, >> right? >> In the last 3 years, >> right? >> Is it okay if we take half that 5,000 sense that be okay? >> Again, I'm just talking openly. What I'm saying doesn't make sense. >> I don't think you want to take anything from repairs and maintain, but no. >> Whatever the line items got some funding. >> How about gravel and rock and >> gravel? I don't you want to touch that. That's touchy subject right here. >> Okay. Might need more of that. I think supplies could easily eat a thousand. >> Where's that at? That's >> 10 10 down or soish. Right below the last yellow highlight. >> 14 down. >> 149 and we've only spent 86. >> But in 23 you spent 39,000. >> I understand that completely. >> Any idea why that's such a fast swing? >> Is that just the accounting, Natalie, on >> I I think a lot. Yeah, some of it could have been coding, but I think 2023 was when I first started and that's when we started actually coding things where they actually belonged. >> Okay. Well, you might be able to pull $2,000 out of there now cuz you're at >> Yeah, we just need 8,600. So, um 2,000 out of uh supplies or maybe motor fuels. Um And then 2,000 out of equip equipment supplies. That'd be 4,000. And 5,000 out of out of uh what was it? Patchwork. That gets me $9,000. That gets me there. >> How's that sound? >> Sounds like plan to me. >> Okay. So, I've got >> Yep. Um, >> I'm sorry. I missed what the last item was. >> Hang on. Uh, it is uh two 2,000 out of uh motor fuels and 2,000 out of equipment supplies and then 5,000 out of tax. >> All right. Thank you. Sorry. your head. >> I I don't know if it's a just as I'm looking on this on page 13. What happened to Kelsey? >> It didn't go away. >> No, I can assure you. >> Anything else on page 13? Good council agreement. Page 14. >> Farmers market and nothing really happening there. Parks. Um some some a few changes here. Um we've had a lot more activity in parks. You can see in 23 we only spent 36,000 and then in 24 it was 92 but really 62 because 30,000 was capital. Um, and this year I'm projecting 74,000 and we're budgeting 62. So, our budget here has gone up. >> Can I ask on uh repairs and maintenance? It looks like we were short uh a couple thousand and it looks like historically short every year has been over the 6,500. Looks like it's short 2,000 bucks. >> Right. Right. >> Yes, that's true. Is there anywhere $2,000 can be reallocated? >> Um, doesn't look like it. >> No, it's >> No, this this budget needs to increase. I I believe >> you haven't spent the ground for parts for the last three years, >> right? $600 there. Yeah. And do we need miscellaneous? Anything miscellaneous? >> No. 1100. You can move that. >> So move that that that uh gravel rock and miscellaneous to the pairs of maintenance. That gets you up to 66. >> Good. >> Okay. Or 76. Sorry. [laughter] >> Just looking for money. Would does 500 bucks help? If the farmers market's done and we we've spent 1,700 but we budgeting for 2500 there's 500 bucks that can be somewhere else. >> Mr. Mayor >> the the farmers market and and I have to get an updated number from Black Sea. the farmers market, we we we budget 2500, but any money that's actually spent out of that is spent from the vendor fees and not city money. >> So, um I don't I we could go down by 500, but I it was just kind of a placeholder. We really don't spend any of it because it's the vendor fees. >> No. Yeah, I I completely understand that. But that's why I'm going if we know now that our we're up we're >> your vendor fees are going down. >> Vendor fees are going down or but but if if it's all offset then then then the placeholder probably should be more realistic. >> Yeah. >> Because I guess what I'm saying >> we could go down to >> I mean I'll take I'll take savings and reallocating over fund balance any day. So change the farmers market to two 2000 and move that to the repairs and maintenance also. >> It's pretty close. >> Need to add that back in or leave it out. contingency. >> Everybody's looking at me. Um, [laughter] I'm a contingency person. I got from a planning standpoint. The goal is never to use it, but it's >> But at least it's there if you need it. >> It's coming out of general fund. I got it. But what I don't want to do is go over on a budget, >> right? >> And keep it so tight, right? >> I like to hold budget lines and not use it. So the goal is not to use it. But would I like to see it? I will. And I would too as a project. >> I think it [snorts] makes sense back in Glazer. >> I I guess I'm still at the money's going to come from the same place in the end. Anyhow, >> it is as long as it's budget available to >> use something else. >> Yeah. My point is it's it's just would have just come back to the council and say we got a pole. >> But >> but if you're over your budget, you're over your legal budget. If this is in there, it could prevent you from going over your legal budget. >> That's a point I I'm going to tell you. I did not understand that. >> So, it's something that is is I continue to put that, >> right? >> I'm not afraid to say that at all. >> So, we didn't use any in 2023. We didn't use any we used $6 in 2024, >> right? >> Um we're projected not to use any in 2025, >> right? >> You're under budget in 2025 by $100,000, but that's because you didn't hire an administrator. You had budgeted for that had you been here over which became a contingency. Just kidding. Um do you want less in there? What would you want? What would you recommend? Personally, I would stay where we're at. But otherwise, um compromise on less because put $5,000 in your cut in half and put something in there. >> It doesn't impact unless you use it. So, your fund balance stays there. It only impacts you if you need to use it and it's not there. >> What is the impact if we go over limit? Does that affect our tripaa? >> It might affect your your rating. Um it it goes on your financial statements that you know it gets reported by the auditors that you went over your budget. You know, nobody's going to arrest you or anything like that. It just doesn't look like you're very good at planning. >> Mr. Mayor, >> I mean, in light of that, I I think it makes sense just to put that cushion in there. We haven't spent it. Hopefully, we won't spend it. I don't think we're frivolous spenders. We don't have frivolous spenders up at the city office. So, I I think >> and if this were to get I'm sorry. If this were to get need to be used, city would the staff would come back to you and say, "We had this going on. We need to use the contingency." I would feel better if that contingency was there unused as opposed to digging into the general fund and potentially going over legal budget and affecting your credit rating and whatever else. >> I said my piece about using extra fund balance. So >> I got the contingency. I need your input again. Would you like to do it or you prefer not to? >> I prefer not to do it. >> Prefer not to. >> I prefer >> prefer not to. I prefer to have it in and we can look up at to try park. Um, if we look under landscaping supplies 225, we had 70 [cough] 800 rejected. So, but we not spent any >> No, that's what you're spending. >> You went over budget there. >> Okay. So you did go over budget in [clears throat] several departments, >> but you have such a huge, >> you know, your administration is $100,000 of budget under budget. So you're fine overall. >> Really, mayor, >> I I would like to add back in. I >> I would like to add back in again. The goal is not to spend it, but I don't I I would much rather have it >> and not use it than even not have the ability to do it. I do not want to affect her credit. >> And the goal, the 100% goal is all assertions. This is not your spend, right? >> It's only in case of emergency. That's it. >> And even if it's been pull from the general fund to put it in there, it's just a holding. >> So, sounds like it's three to two. I haven't put it back yet. >> Thank you. >> And that's just we didn't vote on but >> Okay. And then the transfers out, but That is for um >> this starting on page 50. >> Yep. And that there's a summary there that I I provided um showing you the differences by category um compared to 2025. You can see there the salaries and benefits are up quite a bit. And I have an explanation on the next page on 16th the reason for those changes in in the salaries and benefits compared. talk on that salaries and benefits because that's like a substantial amount. >> Yeah. So in >> the budget they're almost identical but projected is that all because of the city administrator? >> No. So the changes from the projected 25 if you go to page 16 I haven't detailed that for you. >> Okay. >> Why there the changes on that? So the council was not a full counsel in 25 um administration. Dileia is now full-time for the whole year. She was only parttime for part of the year. And Natalie has an increase in her wages versus uh the the leader in 2025. There's an election in 26. It was a one in 25. There's a 4% cola increase. That's the 25,000. There's additional firefighters and public works and parks has additional hiring and there's overtime and part-time and and benefits for 2025. And the new leave costs are $2,200 for the city. Those are all that is all what makes up that $98,000. >> That makes sense. >> Council, silly question. So the council's paying this extra tax, but it doesn't get used. Is that the general budget? >> In the state? In the state? No, I think I don't I'm sure they hold a liability account for that because they have to keep track of it, you know. >> So >> So we're not keeping it that's at the state. We have to send the money. >> Yeah, we have to send the state >> the state. >> We don't keep it. >> Just double checking. It's like the tax you pay on supposed to pay for when people take the >> tax on taxes. >> Uh ma'am, what's capital outlay? What does that mean? >> Like you got anything projected for 25? >> I'm sorry. Okay. Nothing budgeted. >> I have Yeah, we did not budget for any capital in 2025, but we did spend capital money. fire department is buying buying some kind of bags [laughter] this year. >> Yes. >> And something else too. What's the other? >> But it wasn't over budget. It was in required budget. >> Nope. That was in 26. And remember we moved it to 25 because they had excess budget to use. So as you can see the total general fund is under budget byund $100,000 $130,000. Unfortunately revenue budget is also under budget. So >> yes >> is that the last page? >> That's the last page for the general fund. So, um, then page 17 is a a is a a synopsis of what we just talked about. And it's showing that it's less than 1% increase in the levy for the general fund. You can see there where the transfers out are going. It's going to the equipment fund, the turnout gear, and the debt service funds. they close to debt service because we postponed levying for the debt that we currently have to keep the levy lower. So in um is there any questions regarding the levy levy was I think I go over that in a different page in the back because this is just general fund. So you said delay. I'm sorry I didn't catch that up before. So does that mean it's going to be play catch up later? >> No. No. Okay. >> Month page 17 is looking at current expenses. It's going up by 6%. Very very >> total increase >> for current taxes. >> Yeah. less than less than 1% increase in expenditures compared to the budget not compared to actual >> correct. Any questions on page 17? >> So then we can jump to the gambling contribution fund. Um the transfer out still stands at 50,000. You can increase that if you would like, but that is totally up to you. Like I said, if what happens then is you just have less funding available for future years because you're getting about $36,000 a year in in revenue and you're spending 50. And so that $30,000 that you have in fund balance will be decreased over a in a couple of years. And so in in a couple years you won't have you'll only be able to transfer what you're getting which will be $35,000. >> Why don't you go back to 2023 and get $64,000 >> that the transfer in there came from the general fund. General fund had the the revenues >> that the gambling fund was contributing to and so we had to transfer. >> I missed that. Any questions on JQ at all? no changes to that transfer out. >> I don't think it makes sense. >> And then like I said, I if you go on to page 19 recycling, you know, good news, great job. Um our the budget for 20 26 is 45,000 for revenues, which is awesome. Um the projected is also up from what I what I originally had but we should get about 50,000 rather than 45. So that is [snorts] good news. >> If you compare the uh revenues compared to the expenditures, Young's got an exact match for 2026. You would have been like $2,000. >> Yeah, we're really close. So that's really good news. >> Yes, >> that is really good news. >> Yep. Yep. >> So it will no longer be a a cost center. It will be a $1,000, >> right? But it's not, you know, that that can be resolved over the coming years. >> Much closer. >> Yes. And Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. >> And I attended a session with the county last week and um she and I will sit down next week. There were some different things that were brought up um from the coordinators from other recycling centers um that we will look at to try to see if we can reduce costs. Um, some of it is dependent instead of having our great big huge rolloffs, you do smaller containers and you can coingle like you do at home. >> Oh, and so we need to do some research on that. I don't know if she's had any conversations with you. >> I know she's been doing a lot of research. >> Yeah, I'm sure she has. [clears throat] >> Hopefully we can do some. Any questions about 19 or 20 that we're doing with recycling center? >> What is the newsletter on the recycling? [cough] >> Um because we advertise the recycling center um in the newsletter, we can um use some of the score funds for that. >> Gotcha. Page 21. >> This is an older service fund. It's been done, but it's just on there still because of 23 activities 24. >> Go to page 22 then. Is that what >> Yeah, let's go to page 22. This is our um 2019A bonds. We're going to be transferring in $105,000 to get that fund balance up um so that we can continue to pay the debt in here. The the levy here is going to be $7,62 and special assessments are expected to be 38,510. With that in influx of transfers in the interest earnings should go up in this fund. >> That's what it is. Any questions on the 223 >> 23 again uh this is our 21 improvement bonds. Um the levy is 232,222 special assessments are 54,000 interest earnings are about six and the transfer in is about is $152,000 to get that fund balance back up. So it was really small if interest earnings in 25 because we had a a negative balance in there for a while. We had we didn't have money available until the end of the year. Any questions on page 23? >> Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure if um specifically the page 23. Mr. Jagger, do you [clears throat] based on money that's being spent this year, you know, what we're having to take from fund balance to pay for things this year, money that we're going to have to borrow next year to cover debt. Have you already looked at started to look at 2027? I have projections for for the levy um out to 203. I believe it's based on your debt service. It's based on what you're going to be um issuing debt for and having to increase [cough] according to that that debt service that you're doing. And then also based on what you're probably going to need in your operations. >> Do you have you recall what 27 looks like your >> project? >> This is something you could share with the council also. >> Y [clears throat] my uh I increase the size here. >> Here we go. Okay. So, when I look at total levies in 2026, we're looking at a 9 and 12% increase. Um, in 2027, [clears throat] looking at a 9.9 and that is mostly general fund because in [clears throat] 2026 you'll be using some fund balance and in 2027 you won't be able to because you'll have less fund balance available. So you you'll need to use you'll have more of your levy going to the general fund and also because I'm recommending you do transfers in 20. So, there's a lot of numbers going on here. Um, in 2027, I'm recommending that you do transfers to other funds for $125,000. So, the equipment fund needs some money and so will the turnout here. They will need money every year. And this is 28, 29, 30, and so forth. So your transfers out grow substantially and that is to support your capital, your street improvements, your equipment, your turnoff gear, um, and things like that in the future and your capital funding too. We don't ever we haven't transferred any money in there and so you don't have like if you needed to redo a roof or something like that, you don't have any money set aside really to be able [snorts] to do that. and and we have to issue bonds, you know, and so we try to avoid issuing debt to pay for those types of things if we have money set aside like in a savings account to pay for that that type of activity. So that is why the levies continue to go up 9% a year for like five years in a row and then it goes back down to 4% and then zero. This is all projections based on what I know, what I think you're going to do. And and I so but it it gives me some comfort in knowing where we're going and how we're going to get there as far as planning. >> This incorporates the CIP plan. >> Yes. So unless big equipment you buy will definitely have an effect on one one caveat on this is if you look at the road improvement >> we've got a fiveyear projection but that's it and so that was the one big concern if you go back to the other spreadsheet you're rolling quite a bit of funding about 320,000 a year into that to pay for roads >> right >> one of my big concerns is the roads and how we're going to deal with them as we go forward >> right >> as especially with the cost of rebuilding a lot of roads that haven't Y and and the goal here is to eventually not have to issue debt every other year to pay for your loans that you have enough money in there so that you would be able to pay for the loans and then you collect the assessments with that interest and not have to pay that interest on the bond. And so then you know then you're you're accumulating money over time and so you don't you don't issue as much debt. >> Is there any questions on page 23 page 24? Think we got a few pages left to go through? >> Yep. And here's your new bond. Um the adalum taxes are 136355. special assessments will be about you collected quite a bit on the the new usually you collect like 20% of your specials and this one was 50%. So it was nice that you collected it up front. So we've got that upfront special assessments to pay for the bond interest that will be due in August. So that 39,000 will will um come out of the collections that you >> where did the 39,000 come from? The 39,000 is the interest that we owe on the bonds. >> Yep. >> And the 82,000 is what you collected already in 2025. >> I got Thank you. >> And and then we're going to issue debt to basically pay for or to to we're going to collect taxes to pay for the February principal and interest for 2027. You always collect it the year before it's due. So you have the money to pay for the debt. >> Other questions on page 24. Moving to page 25. >> Park improvements. We have the 9hole disc trail improvement still in there and the memorial park improvement at $20,000. You do have money available here and it has to be spent on park improvements. And so you have uh basically $210,000 available. Um and they're planning to spend 25,000 next next year. >> Customer we had an estimate right now on the memorial. You said 25,000 was allocated for the memorial. >> No, 20 >> 20 that's under building and structures. >> Yep. That does not include the veterans memorial. >> It does not. >> No. No. Um I I don't off the top of my head I have um 27 or 28 or something >> something like that. And I'm just I've um we had somebody we were trying to deal with or work with on um the issue of the stone and the the etching and I've not had success getting anything from them. So we're going to move to another business. Um but I have >> So that's not in there yet. So it's going to go >> Yep. So, we have a metal fabrication which came in very nice. Um, and then we are waiting on an updated concrete bid. Um, because we're going to do a a colored stamp border to make it look nice. So, I'm waiting for the the updated bid on that. So, I don't know. >> And in the capital improvements, you don't have a legal budget. It's the general fund that where you have your legal budget. Capital improvements budgets can be adjusted according to what funds you have available there. >> So just look at one of the parts. You have $20,000 in his budget. >> Yeah. So you can increase that if you want because you have funds available. >> Well, one, it hasn't made it to the council yet to we're still collecting costs. >> Okay. >> But and then we haven't collected very much for donations yet. So >> Okay. >> So you don't know. >> My recommendations leave or >> Okay. >> Hopefully we can collect some decent donations for this. >> Okay. We have to go petition and do some work. >> Yeah. Once we have solid dollars here, >> we go to page 26. >> Yep. And then it's uh there's still $17,000 left for improvements to this building and then $30,000 transfer off. That's all that's in there. Nothing else. We don't have any estimated amounts on what it takes to repair our walls here, but we have budgeted 17,000. >> That's just from be willing to look into it. >> I believe we do 17, but I don't know specific trade that takes to come in and do this. I don't know. Okay. >> All right. Page 27. >> Yep. And this is your road improvement fund. And uh we have the road improvements that we're doing for 2026 listed there. And there's a county project that they're allowing us to pay off that project over 3 years. So it's 24,000 now 24,000 7 and 28. >> So estimated road improvement funding is is it 658? Is that what's budgeted? No, the budget is 734,000 that you're using 658,000 in fund balance. And then your your ending fund balance will be 125. You'll have to probably issue debt again in 27 like you did in 2014. So it's every other year that you'll issue debt for for building. >> And right now at the bottom, is this 560? Is that what be currently estimated >> for the project the country meadows west Paul country acres Martin Morton farm preserve that's what uh Shane has given us and then you budget for repair and maintenance of the roads 100,000 and calcium chloride 50,000 got any >> questions on page 27 which >> is the equipment and so uh we issued debt for the fire equipment that was the it's not 503 it's a little bit less there's also we finally paid off the other fire equipment that was we finally received the other fire equipment and paid them off and so um the new equipment here for prepainting it in 26 and I'm not sure when delivery is promised but >> 18 >> 18 months. >> Okay. I can turn water. >> And then for 26, we've got 78,000 for a tool cat Bobcat, 30,000 for we talked about a new box for the truck, >> and then $10,000 for network computers. >> That's a server. >> That would be replacing the server and keeping what we have as a backup. So if we ever go down again, it doesn't be down as long. >> Yeah, because we're still borrowing one right now. >> Yes. >> And did you say the 78,000 was for the tool cap? 30,000. This is motor vehicles. That's for the box. >> Yep. That's for the box truck. >> Box on the truck. That's rusted up. >> Yeah. >> Allows us to extend that four more years basically instead of replacing the whole thing. >> That's correct. Exactly. >> Seems like creative deal. And page 29 is the same graph that you put up on. >> Yep, that is correct. >> But I would appreciate if you'd send that to the council, then they can look at it because I I know they got a hard copy right here, but there's a lot going on in your spreadsheets and all you're going to do is look at it and say, "Holy smokes, how do you decipher this thing?" So, [laughter] >> if you got questions though, we can bring in and spend an hour to go through it because there's a lot going on. >> Very complicated. >> Yeah. And here's my projection now for the uh taxes payable in 2026. So the average property here in and now then is about $451,000. And so your taxes uh the change over the previous year, your taxes will go up about $82 I'm projecting for the city, which is about $6.83 82 cents a month increase >> which reflects 8.3% or on average I'll say 8.4 8.5%. >> Yep. >> Depending on the cost >> just depending on your value of your home. >> Unfortunately I can look at your property tax statement and everything else went up and it's a lot more than what we're driving. >> Oh yeah. >> But it's >> Yeah. There was a a report a lot of cities actually had increased levies this year. It wasn't >> large was really referring to like the county. We don't get any control over that name. It seems to like just go up Facebook, Texas. >> In St. Francis, >> they just built a little fire station with bombs and >> that a huge Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. What action needs to be taken on this? Do we have to >> No action? You know, unless you want me to, you know, if I need to know if the levy is good, uh where where we're at. Um you know, the the budget is is going to be adopted where with these amended changes that we've we're going to vote on that on the council meeting in December. >> In December, you have to you have to adopt your budget and you have to adopt your lead >> at that meeting. December 9th. >> Yep. >> Is there any concerns that we going to address today? >> We don't have to address them on that night. >> Yes. Yes, please. >> I can say there's never enough go around, right? Pretty much that just as we've talked about it through. >> Y >> sounds like there's no questions on that. Um are we ready to move to 3B then? Everybody good? All right. So, moving on to 3B. Looks like approval of resolution to approve uh Bill Oldman to work as a seasonal public works employee and Dana, how do you pronounce Dana's last name? >> Kendrick. >> Um is as needed seasonal guard. Any uh Miss Johnson, you wrote this up. Anything else we need to add to this? >> No, I don't believe so. It should be >> pretty straightforward. pretty straightforward. Dana has worked for us for quite a long time and Bill was our summer helper this year and has moved on to with her help as well. >> Anybody like to make council? >> I would move that we approve resolution 2025 uh authorizing Phil Holman to work as a seasonal public works employee and being an engine as an as needed record. Second. Any discussion on this? >> Hearing none. Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. That one's pretty straightforward. All right. Want to start us off on Cooler recommendation. Pwork step salary range to be presented at the meeting. Um, one question before we go into this is does this does not need to be approved. This is because we've already approved what the the budget's going to be for 2026. >> Not approved, but we proposed it and we're going to vote on it next month. So, the step salary would be something that would go into effect in 2027. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, here's >> I still needed a a range to be able to post it. And I know that anybody that applies for it, if they're coming from another city, they're going to ask us for it. >> You're saying put it u the step range is part of the job description when you post it. >> Correct. >> You can you give them the range, but then when they come in, they're going to go through their brain and say, "Okay, I have this much experience. I have this much." That would be I'm at a step seven at this city. Is that a step two at yours or is that maxed out at yours? depending upon the the >> I understand that we would love to get it done. Here's why I we we this will be the first time we've talked about the step uh step wage salary range. What I would like to do tonight is just discuss it. I think there's going to be some key takeaways and not look to do an approval on it tonight. That's my recommendation. Again, we can do what we want as a council, uh, but not push it forward because I know you've got work for on it, but I want to review it and if we're missing things, I would not like to do a vote on it. >> And that's okay. I just need your permission to go ahead and post the decision to pay and get it posted. Get it on the LMC, get it on. >> That's what I believe is the most important. Also, >> Mr. I I just to piggyback on what you're saying though, I would like for for now until council is presented with what steps actually look like. I would like the word step taken out of it so nobody so anybody that applies isn't um misled thinking that we have steps already. >> It wouldn't be in the job description because it's not yet >> unless I'm missing something in the title. So there there was the words uh I believe the word step was used in the packet. >> You're right. It says create a step chart. So, I haven't I haven't [clears throat] we as a council haven't got >> we as a council haven't been presented with any framework of what that will look like and so that's I'm on the same page as you are as far as we need more information >> and I believe part of it again was asking um member Swenson and Brian to get together again and be able to come back with some of those proposals. because you guys are working. >> There were some of them that were >> had initial meeting. >> Yes. >> If council member Brian and Spencson are willing. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Mayor, >> the original goal was Yeah. to come up with some sort of salary re some sort of pay recommendation so that we can at least get the job posted. And that's basically where what was my understanding that we were going to do when we met. So we we did come up to the come up that far so that we could at least use that number going forward >> for the job post 28 to 3650. >> And to me that would make sense. Where did it say step in here? Am >> I missing it? [clears throat] >> Where did you see that? >> Oh, up in the very very top. >> Yeah, we do. I do have the same [clears throat] Maybe that's where my confusion came from. >> I don't know. >> That might have been one that Felia did and I had to put the correctly. >> Got it. >> It's just on page underneath. All right. Thank you. So, the word step should be removed from if that's the current proper resolution. The word step being removed from the whole end of that. >> And it should because we know that the ranges have to be posted as part to me it makes sense to post the position. Um what I don't want to do is rush that portion of it because I think it's important for our city. Our city is slightly different and we need to get our council comfortable with it. >> So Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. >> Mr. or council member Brian, were you willing to meet to start looking at that again? >> We we can we can meet for discussion certainly. >> Are you trying to coordinate some dates right now also? Is that what you're trying to >> No, we can do that later. I just he hadn't acknowledged that we wanted to do it yet. So, we want to make sure. >> All right. So, we're on 3C right now. It's approve approve a recommendation for public work step range to be presented at the meeting. Do you have anything that's going to be presented? >> Uh no, because only. >> So, >> I did a step range and kind of brought it as a sample. >> Okay. Is that what was in the packet where you were talking about some cities? Yes. No. >> That was telling you what cities have step programs. >> Okay. >> And which ones do not. >> Okay. So, 3C can be removed from the agenda then. >> That's what I'm hearing. Well, 3C is more approving the job posting, right? I mean, can we change it to just approving the job posting? >> Yes, >> cuz that's what we need to approve. >> That is what I need to do >> the job posting with the pay. Thank you. >> So, pre needs to be amended to approving the job posting with the pay range. No steps. >> Okay. >> Everybody Well, let's wait for we can't do anything about it right now. >> Yeah. Let's just give it a minute here. Thank you for the clarification on that stuff. I'm reading this one and reading this one and I Well, this one's actually already been passed and approved. Um, another rating. >> We didn't have a range. >> No, no, no. I'm just >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I apologize. That was something I had someone else do and I got over here and I thought I replaced all of them. >> No worries. I'm glad I'm not the only one confused because I was confused looking and reading and all right so we're taking many of these some are slightly different >> Mr. Mayor cler make a motion to approve the posting for a public works employee with the pay range from 28 to $28 to36 per hour all second. Any further discussion on that? >> So it's this resolution with the top line removing create a step chart for 2026 for city employees. It's that resolution. Everybody good with that? Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none. Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. Motion carries. Okay. So 3C amended is done. Next one. Discuss the cola step increase city council received via email copies upon request. That is 3B. And I don't know what page I'm on. Any idea what page we should be looking at in the packet? >> Oh, this was just wanting to make sure that we knew if we were going to go with the 4% for this year. >> And we voted on that earlier, >> right? and it's already in the budget. >> So I I don't think that needs to come back up. >> Yeah. >> It was a I'll say a compromise amongst everybody. Um okay. So that's done. 3D is done. So now we're going to 3E. Discuss PTO Holly overtime C city council receiving email copies upon request. That would be page 33 that I should be looking at. Yes. And all the backup information was already sent to you. Okay. So, let's open this up for discussion. Um, Miss Johnson, you want to set the stage on it? You're probably the best person. I think you probably from employees. Set the stage on what you believe should be discussed. Well, basically I think we've kind of hit this as good as we can hit it. I think all the details have been out. This week happens to be another good example of it. The guys been out at 2:00 in the morning, 3:00 in the morning and stayed most of the day um because they're out plowing and um came here to set this up and a few things. And you know there's Thanksgiving and Friday, both holidays. Um therefore they would get paid straight time for leaving their homes in the middle of the night to come plow the drive or you know plow the roads >> with our current holiday >> right >> because it is holiday on Thursday. >> Yes. [cough] So they would not get overtime for that. I believe all the employees wrote something up for you because they couldn't be here tonight. Um >> are we talking the two public works employees >> and the two administrative I think only I got the copies physical. I only seen two on the email. Was there more on here? >> They were all I only seen two. Okay. >> Mr. Mayor, can I have to discuss? >> Yes, please. So, first I want to open by saying when we had our meeting in October and we gave staff direction to and I I believe we named four cities specifically Grove. Um do you remember what the other three were? >> Baldwin. Do you remember what the other the other two were when we gave direction? was one Ham Lake, I think, cuz it was closer to like us. I don't remember the other one. Oh, it was to bring you everything that I had from previous discussions. So, >> it's my understanding. So, that was the emails that we had sent. >> So, back shortly after that meeting on October 15th, I sent you an email >> um and it specifically said, "Please provide council with copies of the four cities actual policies." And the reason I asked for that is it's difficult for me to make a decision based on dialogue from a phone conversation or email. Um so I and I'm not really sure because I don't think you I couldn't find that you responded to my email and I didn't get any information as far as um you know the the city's actual policies as far as um how they pay their um public work staff versus how they pay their home staff. And so one of the things I I really want to I really want to take issue with and I actually take some offense because one of the things that I have continually advocated for is that we created policy an overtime policy specifically for public works because they do have to come in after hours. They do have to come in on holidays. They do have to come in on weekends. And I take offense and and yes, Council Member Brian and I have been the two that have been fighting this. I I understand that. I take and I accept that and I will continue to fight this. But but to imply that I don't care about our employees is to imply that I don't care about people, which would imply that you don't know me very well because I care deeply about people. I care about our employees. >> Thank you. >> But but I I come from a different perspective on this. >> I I come from the from the private sector versus the public sector. I come from the standpoint that I was elected by by the taxpayers of now then to help manage the the budgets that we have. So I I really would appreci it tells it tells me that possibly people either if they've watched the council meetings if employees have watched the council meetings they really haven't paid close attention to what I've said in regards to this policy because multiple times I don't know how many times I'd have to go back and try and watch all the all the video. I I said I I'm advocating for a a specific policy for public works. So what I >> we just haven't come up with anything yet and we just kind of keep going over it and over and over it. >> So that's why that's why in my email on October 15th, I asked specifically for the we asked for information from four specific cities. I specifically asked for their written policies in regards to how they pay overtime to their to their staff >> and I provided all of that in the previous email. >> Um, if you want the if you want the whole policy, I'll have to do a data request. I we asked their human resources or whoever does their payroll or their administrator and those were the ones that responded. All of their phone numbers are also listed here if you'd like to contact and confirm it with them. >> So, so what we need to what we need to do because we keep going back and forth on this. We need to come up with something for public specifically for public works because in regards to administrative staff, I I attended the meeting la the council meeting last year where the portion of the of the personnel policy which included overtime was adopted and passed. Um, we went over it with attorney all sites this year where it was passed to approval and not and we keep coming back with this this overtime policy for administrative staff to pay based on over based on PTO and and holiday. let's focus on on taking care of public works and whether whether it's something to the effect of the PT PTO and and and holiday time isn't factored into in into the overtime calculation, but if they come in at after after hours, whether it's to plow, whether it's for emergency prepare, that let's say hypothetically they're paid time and a half for that regardless. Can can [clears throat] we can we as a council focus on on that? >> So I don't know that we can answer your question right now. So his question is um and we can answer it as you guys go around but can we focus on public? >> Yeah, I think we got to focus on all staff. I mean, you got the emails and the letters from our staff people and Dia and she laid out a very specific scenario where she ended up having to put in extra hours to put together our council packets and she ended up putting in that extra time at straight time. And so I think it does affect them. Um I I mean I think we totally need it for public works because this week is a like you said a very good example. They're getting paid straight time for waking up at 2:00 a.m. to plow our roads so that we can get to work on time. I think the least we can do is show them the respect of paying them time and a half and I don't think we limit it to public works and I think it is a matter of respect for employees. It's such an insignificant amount of money in the long run. There's very little I think hours that this would actually affect. It's more about respect for the employees and saying we value you. We value your work. We value your input and your time and we trust that you're not going to manipulate and abuse this system. Also, I you know, if we start splitting up staff or splitting up, you know, different scenarios of after hours, before hours, that's just more work to administrate it. I think you're going to spend more hours on it and ultimately spend more hours than it costs in overtime. And so I just I think as a matter of respect to our employees and their time I I think we should just across the board for the employees uh change a policy so that PTO and holiday do count as uh hours work so that they get overtime when they come in after hours. >> We have talked about this numerous times [cough] and each time I have said I'm not interested in pitting our employees against each other. So, I've always advocated for one policy for all employees. Um, I think that's the fair way to do it. There'll be more of a um, it affects public works more, but there are times it affects the administrative staff. And I don't feel it's fair that we have two different policies. Um and that we don't that we're we're just pitting employees against each other and and I think that's wrong. Um especially given with the administrative how um it will the big time that that'll occur is elections. If you've ever been in the office to watch um what it takes to to to administrator administrate an election, um it's a lot. And you can plan all you want for staffing. Um, and in any instance, you can plan all you want for staffing, but if somebody calls them sick, somebody gets hurt, somebody has to go do something else, then that is a burden on the other staff and they're working additional hours. Um, so I I I agree with Council Member Spenc. It's a fairness issue. um it's respect in respect for our employees and um I don't think it's right to devalue the contribution of one classification over another. So I I would say that we I would say that we move to um have staff be paid time for anything over eight hours in a day. >> Mr. Mayor, But I'm I'm going to lose this one. So it it's you know this this this council member Swinson you come from a team search background union. [clears throat] Council member Regal, you come from working for the city of Minneapolis for how many years? >> A lot. >> A lot. So this is this is the mindset. I I come from the private sector and typically in the private sector you follow the you follow the state guideline. The federal the federal guideline we could be more harsh but I don't want to go there. So based on the state guideline our our administrative staff if they work over 40 hours they get paid overtime not not anything over eight hours in the day and PTO and holiday time is not included in that. you know, typic typically in the private sector if if you work if you work 40 hours, you don't burn just burn time. So for me, you're not allowed to. So for me, that's that that would be game necessary. So I don't think it's I don't think it's unfair. I've worked I've worked other places where there were certain parts of the company that had different payroll where they got time and half of coming in getting called there. I didn't get that. That's something I accepted when I took the job. So, and you know I don't I don't understand how why this is treating people unfairly. There are different job classifications. They're coming in. They're coming in in the middle of the night. They're take they're taking more risk, going without sleep, leaving their families. I I totally get that. I'm totally in favor of of of changing how we pay public works. But to to say that that this is it we're ignoring the fact that this will affect our budget. We just had conversations and taking a look at at how much payroll has gone up in the last couple of years. It's it's significant and this will have an impact on it. >> Do you have an estimated by chance? >> I don't know that. Can we request that? You said what what is going to be? >> How do you estimate that, sir? >> I don't know. I was asking we asked the question a couple minutes ago. I don't remember. >> Hold on. Council member Ryan, before we move on, I would like him let him talk. There's all sorts of different policies and and and yeah, I could totally understand if you're if to to and and I've also worked in different situations where based on whether your hour based on whether your hourly or salary, you get um you get comp time or or your vacation is acred and is acred differently. So, there's all sorts of benefits that can that can be be adjusted in many different ways. And even from the information that was provided in the packet, you have you have uh policies where public works is has a different policy for than than than the office staff. You have you have some offices some cities that are are are counting PTO and holiday and others that don't. So, it's all across the board. Um, if I mean I can totally understand if you're working if you if you're if you're um if we're in a situation where like public works where we don't know exactly where the weather is and if something comes up and you need to change your plans that we adjust for it. Um and so I you know and again yes I would I would certainly think that we can we can make some adjustments to a policy to accommodate that um and and go from there. I too would like to see, well, how does this affect the budget? Again, we we've got a budget. We put it in place. And >> now now in November, we're looking we're looking to change the policy that was that was was passed and reviewed and and and going from there. So, >> Mr. Mayor, >> could could you just hold off on your conversation while Council Member B? Go ahead. >> No, I I No, that's fine. That's I'm good for that. >> [clears throat] >> Are you under the same recommendations, Councilman Glazer, that only focus on public works or are you stating that we should review this more? >> I think I think the immediate the immediate need would be would be to to handle the public works situation. >> Um, Miss Johnson, >> I was asking Lori to hug up what she has for overtime. >> I hope that's okay. >> Yeah, there's no overtime for admin. >> There's no overtime for admin. And then there's overtime for public works in the budget. >> But I would like to ask one question and this is my last thing on here and my last push with the employees. You're saying that the public works are not as valuable as your admin, but when we don't get the stuff or the packet and we have to stay late to get a packet out to you within your 3 days at least and get everything posted that if we had dinner plans and we had to stay late and it's at the end of the week and we can't flex any time, that's okay. >> It has nothing to do with valuing one one group of people over the other. If if somebody if somebody works more than 40 hours, they get paid overtime. >> Okay. >> And and sometimes sometimes, you know, it's it's like in in my work. My work is Yeah. It's unique because I'm self-employed, but sometimes sometimes I miss dinner. You know, yesterday I missed breakfast because of the weather. I had to get out early. So, it's not a we don't we're not valuing one group of employees over the other, but but we're trying to be realistic with the taxpayers's money. And not every city is the same. Now then, now then we'll be the next St. Francis if we're if we're not careful where where our taxpayers are are going to say we need less government because because they're spending too much money. And so this will have an impact on the budget. It's it's inevitable. And so I I simply don't I don't understand why we can't right now focus on a policy to take care of public works because of the time that they have to put in after hours. [clears throat] >> But it's not just public works. You you want a blanket policy for all employees. If that's what you want, vote on it. you know how I'm gonna vote. So, so just get it because you're gonna vote on it anyhow. Get it done because this is ridiculous to keep having these conversations. You know where we stand. You've been fighting this policy for a couple years. I know you have. Council member B uh Swinson stated in a in a in a meeting earlier this year that administrator Laner made his own policy and I have it I have the time stamp on the video and I'd be happy to refer you to it. Council me administrator Laner made a decision on his own to circumvent city policy, a policy that that the city council had adopted and and pay overtime that wasn't that wasn't warranted based on policy. >> Mr. Mayor, circumvented. >> Mr. here. I don't see how that is relevant to our discussion here and a policy that we're having conversation on for our current employees >> because this this goes all the way back to that because the clerk the clerk even told me that that Mayor Pon agreed to change the policy. One person can't change the policy on a city for a city. >> Can we focus on today? >> Yeah. Okay. Let's >> So, Mr. Mayor, >> can I can I speak real quick? Can I would it be all right? So, one of the things is if you look at the sheet and customer Brian brought this up, you have every different city doing different things and some pay PTO and holiday and they don't count hours. Some push and count hours. I think there's some other things that we can look at that can be part of the discussion. I think we make could make sense for us. We currently have how many hours can they roll over right now, Miss Johnson? Is it $200? >> 200. >> Okay. So other cities can roll over a lot more hours and they can bank hours and they can do different things. So right now we're con we're constraining ourselves and we've got employees that you read their letters that are not super pleased with our current policy. So why it keeps being brought up is I'm going to say we have some amount of discontent uh how we handle this and that's our choice and whether it's this or that it's all about good constructive discussion sake. What do we think is right concern? And everybody's agreeing on that. Okay. So, I'm just staying. All right. Going around the world. Council member, >> thanks. I I do think it's a respect issue and splitting up the employees. You are placing different values on after hours or four hours of work. One merits time and a half, the other does not. But as Councilwoman Rainville pointed out, we have elections coming up. As Lexi pointed out in her letter, you know, overtime hasn't been a super huge issue yet for the administrative staff, but I expect that's probably going to change with the uh election coming up. And I I don't think the discontent expressed in these letters is regarding the policy. I think the discontent is about how the council is talking about employees. In that meeting in October, I think you said that employees uh are never satiated or can't be satiated. I think they're feeling pretty undervalued and this is a pretty pretty easy thing to give them because it is not going to cost a lot and it is about respect. The longer this drags on and the longer we go around and around on it, you know, the more it's going to upset them. You talk about the budget, it's going to cost a hell of a lot more money to interview and train a new employee than retain a current employee and put in a fair overtime policy. So, I think from a financial perspective, I think it makes sense to pass. And just from a respect for the employees perspective, I think it makes sense to pass as well. May I offer a compromise that we bring back complex time for employees earlier this year? Comp time >> as long as it was within the same pay period. >> They can't always do it within the same pay period. >> So, and I think both of them items can be brought up. Did you miss Miss Miss Jagger? So if you look at and I know right now we're not counting overtime if they but if you this is where that projection comes from. You can look at the time when somebody had retail over on holidays and they got more than 40 hours and they didn't get paid overtime. So you couldn't just do an overtime poll from the data search. It has to be looking at each week. I thought the projection was somewhere around 6 to10,000 a year is what we're talking about. >> Even less than that. >> I thought we talked about a projection at one time. I don't remember if it was a telephone conversation, but it was we're not talking about an unreasonable amount of money. Is it more money? Yes, it's more money, but it could be flex time, comp time. This is all part of this discussion. So, it doesn't have to be one hard left. It could be anything within here to say, do we increase the rollover hours? That's one piece of it. But what can somebody help me understand the difference between flex time and comp time? >> Comp time you earn that time and a half. So if you work an hour, you get an hour and a half comp time. >> Flex time is just straight time. So if you work an extra hour on Wednesday, you come in late >> an hour late on Thursday, it evens out, but it has to be within the same week. >> So it doesn't give a lot of flex as I remember. >> Okay. So thank you. So comp time. So do we look at comp time and putting that as a partner? >> Uh the whole goal is how do we make sure I want to go back to what council member Swans said. Replacement costs the city a lot of money. Yes, you have to go through your post. you don't have that position filled with that. It could cost you overtime where you're from. I don't want to lose our employees. I think we've got a lot of good ones. But it's got to make sense for the city. That's why this is when it's not easy. We don't have a five to five vote. Sometimes we table. This one we've tabled a couple times, but I believe there's a need to address it. The question is is what's the right? And that's why I I I actually be put back in the agenda because I don't believe we got a resolution that makes sense for us right now. And that's why I keep bringing it up. [clears throat] So part of the reason you got to blame me for bringing this up because I I just don't feel well and I think the letters say a lot that it's resolved enough. I'm concerned we're going to lose in place and they could be in the office and they could be out in public courts. So do we have a projection at all that we that we can go with? But I I I do believe that this is a less than $10,000 and it fixes the issue. >> Now, I want to go back to address this. Do we separate it out and do public works on it? It is an option. It is. And I'll definitely tell you that. Does it I don't believe it causes I don't believe it's a fairness issue. I'm not going to put it that way. But I believe it's a personnel issue that it has the potential not from a fairness but it could divide employees. I get your perspective on civilian jobs industry. I would like to implement a policy that makes sense for the city. One policy. So one of the things I came up with is okay well what if it's unplanned? If it's a planned activity I'll just give you an example. We know that uh for city cleanup you have to do uh come in public works work Saturday. Well, if you know that and you plan PTO that week, you can consider it not being overtime because it's a it's a planned event. It's only unplanned events that take place with the weather conditions and the covert and then it affects more to just the city st uh to public works, but it could affect these guys also. What if one calls in sick, you got a packing dude? It could affect that. But it's difficult to administrate to say, "Well, that was planned. That wasn't planned." And I'm I've spent countless hours thinking about how what is the best way for our city. I would much rather pay the employees if it's projected at $10,000 a year then go for a replacement cost of one employee. Now are all employees 40,000 replace? No. Some are 50,000, some are 20,000. It all depends, but they all have a cost. I do agree with multiple things that you say counselor because it's important. It's trying to bring a perspective from civilian to government and how do we mix this up and make and whatever decision we make, we're going to upset somebody. But at this point, I don't want to upset I the word upset is not correct. I don't want to lose unemploy. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council currently um in this year in 2025, uh how are employees being paid? Are they being paid the overtime hours? If they take time off, >> no, they get straight time. >> So, I'm just letting you know. >> Could it happen in January? Is it possible that we could have the >> It could have been It could have happened in January. >> So, overtime hours for administrative staff in 2025, my projection is $10,000 overtime uh for staff in uh public works. My projection is $5,000. So 15,000 total in overtime. And you're only going to add a little bit. It's not going to be $10,000. >> It's going to be less than that. >> It's going to be less than that. It's going to be >> because it's only the weeks of holiday and when they take PTO PTO. So it's it's going to be way less than that. I mean, >> Mr. Mayor, so I know we've argued on principle and we brought this full circle. Go ahead. I'm just I'm I have an idea. I guess I guess my proposal would be that we count PTO and holiday as hours worked for the purposes of overtime for all hourly staff people. But I I like the idea of offering comp time so that they can take it as comp time >> instead of costing the city >> instead of costing the city. Then they just get additional time off. But I I think we got to give them a choice. I I don't want to say you have to take comp time, but I think if you offer comp time, I bet a lot of them will take that if they get an opportunity to >> because they work an hour, but they get an hour and a half off. That's how it works. And the other thing is the flex time has to be taken within time period. Does count time have to be taken within that? Is that within a year? How does policy work on that? >> That's up to That's up to us. >> Yeah. We roll it over, >> right? Just like everything else, this comp time turns into an unplanned expense, especially if someone >> and that's and so so it does show up on the because that always been an issue when in our audits in the past is um when we did have comp time was this is you know one of these unbudgeted expense that if if who knows where people are at then then that's an I'm probably saying that wrong unfunded >> I I think we got it. So the question is, can you account for that? >> Mr. P, members of the council, [clears throat] um I we can budget for vacation and and sick and and count time because you >> you've already done that though, correct? >> Well, no, I haven't really included that in [laughter] >> not in a large amount because we acrew it at the end of the year. >> Um so it's already acred as far as expenditures. So >> um Mr. Mayor, go ahead. As far as the comp time and that concern goes, I I I imagine the comp time is is not going to be super significant. Maybe we could just put a policy on it that it can't roll over or you can't hang on to it for longer than a year. It can't roll over. Is a calendar year on a calendar year. Is that what you would look at? >> Yeah, I guess. How does that work? You aren't in December. >> Unfortunately, yeah, if it's December 201 budget, so you would have to be consumed by the end of the year. >> Yeah. And that >> So, in that case, they might take it as overtime and then in January they would say, "Oh, I'll take it as comp time because then they can use it." Right. Right. Okay. Would would comp go ahead. >> The comp time is a new issue here. So I would move that the city policy states that all employees are paid at one and a half times their hourly rate for hours over eight, worked over eight. So if there is comp or excuse me PTO or holiday they do not lose overtime and that would be effective tomorrow. That helps us get through uh a we get a policy on the books and um we can then readress the compine. I mean it's 8:30. >> I I know it's 8:30. There's one that I don't want to [clears throat] we needed data. We've needed policies. We've got a something in front of us that states said it's all over the map. >> But why would you just throw just a question? Not trying to throw you on the spot. Why why wouldn't we just talk about comp time right now? >> Cuz I don't have enough info on it. I don't and and it's 8:30. >> We can we can address it in the in January. I mean >> just saying if we want to add that in that makes sense [cough] because it [clears throat] won't be consumed in this. >> Okay. Any other discussion for this Mr. Mayor? Council member Spencer. >> Yeah. Just a little distinction from what council woman Rainbow said. I don't know about more than eight hours in a day. I see that's policy of some cities and I know you know a lot of employers do that. I would rather do the 40 hours in a week and count PTO on holiday as hours worked because, you know, there are circumstances where somebody might want to flex their time or something. I don't know. I could just I I think it might be administratively harder to administrate eight hours in one day because you track payroll, I think, on a weekly basis. >> Correct. And you know, I think from an employes perspective, if they could choose the overtime or comp time for the few times a year it happens. It happens to be Veterans Day is because it's in the middle of the week. Um Junth because it's in the middle of the week. Uh Thanksgiving because we got the end of the week. And Christmas really I mean most other holidays are a Monday. Thanksgiving week is a perfect example. >> Fourth of July. >> Yeah, this one is >> this a perfect example. Did you have another question? >> No, I was just going I mean I'm just trying to come up with a compromise. I was going to say, you know, cuz just right here we got three different ideas. I'm going okay, we can include holiday and that takes care of it because yes, I can see Veterans Day being issued. >> Because it's a little >> Oh, they had to work because something come up. It did >> happened to be that the >> one of the issues that we had the packet last or in November. >> Mr. Mayor, >> is there anybody else on this table before? Okay. Council Sw. >> I would like to make a motion. >> Please make a motion. >> All right. My motion is time and have well PTO on holiday counts as hours worked for the purpose of overtime calculation. Pay time and a half anything over 40. It applies to all staff and I would like to add comp time to it. I I don't think that requires a whole lot of data or thinking. I think it's a positive and so I tend I guess I I would like to be able to offer it as either time and a half pay or comp time at time and a half to hopefully save the city. So that's that's my >> clarify how much comp time that they can roll up >> roll up. >> Yeah. hold on to. >> Yeah. And then it has to end at the end of the year. >> Um >> are we talking 20 hours, 40 hours? So you'd have to include some clarity in your motion on that. >> Yeah. I would say up to a maximum of 20 hours and that they can roll that over. >> They can roll 20 hours from year to year. >> Yeah. >> And you you can have a maximum of 20 hours and you can roll over 20 hours. >> Second. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Is that comp time? Does that make sense to you? >> I'm I'm aware of comp timing because we've had it before, but I'm just going there's again there's different ways to to administer it and I don't want it to be an extra liability of the city and I'd rather just have the the the vacation the extra overtime if overtime being used I'd rather just have it paid out so we don't have the liability of comp time because now we're adding administrative costs to figure out how to do all that for payroll. Miss M Miss Johnson, do you think count time is that something you would be able to administer and keep track of? >> I do. There's a line item in band. >> So you keep keep track of time track. >> You use the same sheets, you'd be able to administer it. So they think it's manageable. >> Yes. >> So if it's manageable from Miss Johnson, you think count time is okay, but you think it is a liability to the city. And I'm I'm only asking for clarification because >> Right. And that's why I'm going this just came up tonight and and so we can we can do an immediate need then and like I'm saying just add in holiday and then then we're good to go. But that's not the motion on the floor. So >> I would be all right removing comp time if it is an issue. I I don't think it's administratively too much or too much of a liability to put a cap on it, but I mean I'm open to discussing that later if we can fix it. I think you have more support for your motion if you remove the content. We're here. >> All right, let's remove the content. So motion is PTO holiday counted as hours work for purposes of overtime calculation apply all hourly employees over 40 hours. >> Over 40 hours. >> Accept that for your second. >> Mr. Mayor, >> to Council Member Bryan's point, the accountant did talk about um unfunded liabilities was the because the EMV was also an unfunded liability >> and um we did away with unfunded with the EMV. Um I don't remember what our limit was on comp time if it was a lot, you know, 20. Yeah, I mean it's was more than 20 hours an employee. slowly by going back to 20 or down starting with 20 that's less of a liability than it was prior to um you know I just remember this somebody put their twoe notice in and go out with months and months and months of pay >> we definitely want >> and we didn't want [clears throat] manageable it's been removed >> it's been removed >> any other discussion points to vote Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Two names. Motion carries. >> I don't ever want to talk about the subject again. >> I don't want to. >> Street signs. >> Street signs. Next thing. Uh the uh 3F update street signs. Find the resolution here. Does anybody know what the resolution is? >> It's on page 35 and it's a request for council action only. There is no resolution. >> Okay. So, it's request for council action. Miss Johnson, do you want to start with I know that it's been typed up and you've given us multiple different options on this. >> Yes. So the at the last meeting you wanted to discuss um replacing all the signs to get us in compliance with the oh the statute that we say in our policy that we will meet with the state with the uh Minnesota. Um, so Dileia worked on it and she sat down and went through all the policies, went through everything. You know, I believe that the recommendation is going to be to continue the way that we have been and try to be progressive at a time as long as we're making progress towards it. I just don't believe that we've got the um staff or the money to replace all those street signs in one year. One of the things council members would ask specifically is what is the cost per sign? >> It depends upon how long and how big they are. And if you look on page, let's see 44. She put some of the sign prices in there. And this comes right off of it. It's about by the time you add in labor posts and the size of the sign and the brackets to go on it. Um the M UTC estimates about $200 a sign. >> G put her estimates in here very different or she left the 250 but she's the amount of signs is different. So >> I did Let me logo. Okay. So, this >> Yes, that's exactly what So, it's the one that says EFA on the top. >> Logo and no logo. >> Yeah. And I think we had decided last >> no more logo >> last month. No logo. Sure. >> So, really come down. You you providing she wrote up three options on that. >> Yes. Correct. >> One of which was do nothing and find it again. All right. Option one, approve the purchase of the non-compliant signs street signs in the northwest corner of the city. Allow staff to identify non-compliant signs in the northeast corner of the city in 2026 leading to compliance in 2028. Staff will then go back in the northwest corner continuing the process to continue compliance in the city. Okay, that was option one. Option two, approve the purchase of non-compliance signs in the northwest corner. City will also be staff to identify nonline signs in the northeast quarter quarter of the city in 2026. In 2026, staff will identify the need to replace non-compliant signs in the south half of the city to allow the city council uh time to budget the takes. Staff can then work to accomplish identifying non-compliant signs in the northern half of the city in 2028 um and the southern half of the city in 2029. So, it's really the difference being is the time frame that we acted. Option number three is spend the money all right now. But the concern there was the city staff or the public don't have time to put them all up. >> Nope. >> So I don't think option number three makes much sense. Open it up for discussion. Who would like >> Mr. I think I think we're totally in compliance if we even just stick to the quarterly approach. >> Thank you. Mer >> needs to be replaced. >> Happy Thanksgiving. >> You too. You too. And um because you know there's um if we drive around plenty of towns, not everybody's in compliance right now. I think we're we're putting a manageable plan in together to look at replacing what needs to be replaced that in four years we have everything good and and the we have everything updated as need needs to be and then that we just plan going forward that you know this might be something we need to plan instead of doing it every year to get caught up to look at every other year to be to be in that >> to stay in compian to stay in compliance. >> Are you recommending option number two? I would say option one. >> You like one? >> Mhm. >> I I got to tell you guys, I'm in favor of number one. It It gives us some time to do it. We're in compliance by 2028. I think that sounds manageable. >> Miss Johnson, from the from the public works side, they think that's manageable. >> It is, Mr. Mayor. >> That's Have we actually identified the number of non-compliant sides signs in the Northwest quarter? We have and we have these eight left that she's that we tried to get past a month ago. >> Is that what this is? >> Remember if it's exactly this one or this one is Yeah, cuz it is. Yep. Cuz it's in 211 223rd and no Yeah. No outlets. >> So it's four streets. >> Yeah. And we had there was money left in the budget for signs in order to do this. >> Mr. make a motion to approve the quote to replace the um street signs based on the EFA quote for the no logo at a total uh $57810 and that we continue to replace lines as needed quarterly and reevaluate the policy if needed be once we've done the four quarters. >> Second. >> I want to third that motion. Thank you. Any other discussion? Well done. Thank you for stating that. Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I want to second and say I again. Thank you. >> All right. Opposed. Motion carries. Move to >> second.journ. Thank you. That was the best summary ever. Did you Did you >> plan this?