sister, right? >> We're live. >> We're live. >> Yes. >> Are we ready to get started? Other than Mary not being here. >> All right, let's open this bugger up. Hey, you like to start the meeting? Today is uh Wednesday, September 3rd at 6:01. And we'll start with the pledge of allegiance, please. Aliance 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. >> All right, would you do roll call, please? Mayor Hibbit >> here. >> Council member Brian >> here. >> Council member Blazer >> here. >> Council member Rainville >> running late apparently. >> Council member Swintson >> here. >> City Clerk Johnson. >> Fire Chief Miller >> here. >> Financial consultant Jagger >> here. >> And administrative assistant. And roll call is complete. >> All right. Thank you. So we'll move on to uh approve the agenda. Mr. Council member make a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Anybody would like to second that second. >> Okay, so we have a second. Move the vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Agenda is approved as is. Moving to the consent agenda, which is number two. So, it's like meeting the minutes, a resolution to accept a resignation, and reposting of the current reception position. Think I'd like to make a motion. >> I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda >> as presented. Does anybody like to second? >> Second. >> Second from Council Member Ryan. >> Any discussion on Are we good? All right. Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. opposed. Motion carries. Consent agenda is approved. So my recommendation since uh Council Rainville is not here, we skip over number three and we go to number four and we move around the table back and back. All right. So Miss Jagger, will you take us and uh uh discuss any additional budget concerns we have? I know we spent a lot of time uh two weeks ago and we went through it line by line through a bottle. Yeah. So welcome to you ma'am. >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, um I sent out a a smaller pack this time with just identifying we you had looked at um the the projected 25 expenditures and compared them to the 26 budget. And so in the in the memo I sent, I kind of detailed what those differences are and what is causing them. Um you can certainly go through each one of those if you'd like. Um I did update uh the projections for some salaries that um there was an increase in in position that wasn't there and then there was some part- timerrs that are now full-time um and but the difference in the projection for the administrative um staff is still 37,000 difference. That's primarily because there's it's not there hasn't been a um fully staffed in 2025. It hasn't been fully staffed. So, um, the 26 budget is reflective of having full staff and that's what the difference is. So, and then elections, um, we're adding an additional $12,000 in 2026 compared to 2025. >> Would if I ask a quick question on that. >> So, every two years we'll have an election cycle, right? >> Is is the cost less on the two years? And I think council member this last time, is it less? It's the It's the Sorry, Mr. Mayor. It's the difference between um like in >> we had a presidential election. So, there's three prim There's at least three primaries. >> So, it's less primaries. >> Yes. And then then next year in 26 there would probably be two primaries. >> So, you're saving that one the cost of that one primary. >> Perfect. So $12,000 to cover Kathy additional $1,000. >> Um general government is is reflective reflecting a 5% merit increase which has yet to be determined, but that's what that that total is for for 31,000. Um fire management is adding 7,000 more in salaries. They're staffing up or getting more volunteers and things like that for 26. Um the public works and parks salary total $7,500 over what is currently projected and that's um probably just because of the additional parttime hours or something like that. If >> I remember right it was you had shifted some funding over from one to I think it was less than one colore >> more than the other >> but it's still an increase over my projection of $7500. So a total of of the uh the 190,000 is the difference between 25 projected and 26 budget 95,000 of that is of salaries and benefit Mer may I ask um so you're it's being suggested that there's a 5% increase is there also cost of that 95,000 >> or is it simp which is recognition and staff and programs. >> And then when we move on to the aggregate of supplies, services, and maintenance, there's uh it's a $36,000 increase compared to the 25 projected. 20,000 of that is for fire train, which is reimbured by the state of Minnesota. And the balance of the increase is a $16,000 increase in those total services, which is about 3% increase over projected at 25. Um the law enforcement contract is going up 37,000. Um building and planning is going up 17,000 and that's for code enforcement. Engineering 4,000 that's for code enforcement. So a total of the um 191 it adds to up to about 189. It's pretty close to 191. So the the projected is listed there as far as what the differences are between the projected and the budget. So and I really have not changed any budget items. Um I know we were going to discuss merit tonight. Um other than that I I did not hear any other changes that uh were being looked at. And so I'm just going to go to my detailed screen and um share that and then we'd like to discuss all the other funds tonight too. So we can get that wasn't covered in the last week. So currently there's a $17,000500 $17,515 increase in the levy in the general fund. The rest of the levy increases all that service. >> So is there some area where you just going back uh maybe for the council guys we went line by line. Did we make it through the entire packet >> or are we just on the some of the ancillary items? >> We made it through the entire general fund budget and we have not made it to any other budgets. >> I know um I I would also like it Christine if you had some comments. I know we don't have open comments but you're now an employee and if you had some comments on recommendations for the budget I think that would be appropriate very similar to what we did with uh Mr. Faze last. It's just in regards to the recycling >> to the recycling. >> Yeah. I mean I'm looking through this pack and consumm >> or or should we just wait till we get to the recycle center? Uh you're really here to talk about the document here. >> Correct. >> Okay. So not so okay then I'm gonna hold you right there we'll get that when I just want to make sure >> was there any budget items specific you wanted to address other than that thank you open up to the council is there other questions we have or want to start getting some of that I I've got a couple items I would like to talk about later but I think we need council here for that um I know we also talked about like a 10% increase in healthcare costs I don't know that's anything we can address. It's pretty much a standard thing. Five to five to 10% usually averages around 7 to eight. >> Also like to talk maybe about road stud a little bit more. Um contingency fund. I think we got through that one. >> Yes, it's down to to $10,000. >> Okay. So that that one is a check. It's already been addressed. And I would like to talk about a severe weather side of that I did not see in the budget. >> No, it's not in. So over you guys, is there anything specific you'd like to address? >> I was just kind of going Mr. May, sorry. Um I was going back and just looking at things and I'm going do we really need a there's a handful of things again. I'm again I'm looking at what we're projecting to spend in 25 what we spent in the past and we're proposing for 26. >> Um and I know it's not going to be that much but every little bit helps. um you know things like under miscellaneous if miscellaneous is paying for mints at council meetings then I don't think we should be spending we should have a miscellaneous line item budget >> which is $1,000 we're budgeting $1,000 we don't and so far we're projected to be at beyond 154ing [Music] let me pull up and see if that is all that's in I just don't like miscellaneous things in a budget. Anyway, >> is that specifically for council meetings? Is that what it says? >> That's for Yes. The mayor and council over on >> So, what is what is in there right now is um uh food for council members, um audio visual check for meetings. That was a big one. That's 325 bucks. And I don't know if that's an onetime thing. Um, otherwise it's refreshments. Um, LGA males for council, myths for council. Uh, so and I only go through here that does that fall under do does do meeting expenses? It seems like that would fall under theoretically fall under like training. So >> it's not for training, it's for meetings. >> Well, it's also for pay for pay for LGO. And >> what is LG? >> LGTA government meetings as we had >> we had to pay where we went to >> and if it's a matter of okay, we don't make dinner, then okay, we don't >> I could reduce it to 500. I hate to go to zero. Because what if something comes up? >> Of course, you have $10,000 contingency. So >> contingency is more than that. So your recommendation is to remove it all together and then if you want to go to an LJGO meeting, you pay for it yourself. >> That's at least what what I'm thinking. That's what I'm doing. >> Well, there is training dollars there for $1,800. So that literally the training would the LGA meal should have gone under training. >> I don't know that that's training. It's more than local news. It's not a train. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> To me for $1,000 miscellaneous budget. I think it's small things. That's why I >> Well, that's why I'm just again this is one thing that was >> and you know when I came up with a couple thousand here and a couple thousand there. >> Is there maybe a different example other than the miscellaneous one here? Well, I've got a couple things under office supplies. Again, it's only about $2,000 under office administration. >> Okay. >> Um where the office supplies was, yes, we dropped it to four, but we've only spent 3,000 and 2,000 these last three years. Check. I'm going to say at least number three. >> Um, look again looking at general supplies, we've only spent 440 yet we budgeted 2,000 an increase. >> If we kept the budget the same, that's 2,000. That's $200 saved. >> But in and if you look at 2024, we spent 2100. So I think that this 440 is an early estimate. And I I hate to hate to it without Natalie saying, "Yeah, we could do that." >> Well, and so I'm just looking at things. Um, >> so is that one coming up with coming up with another a better cheaper solution for a newsletter and not having to spend $8,000? >> Can we go back to this one real quick? >> So, right now, uh, looks like we're 20 >> 2200. Yeah. 20 24 was 21. >> Okay. Right now I'm projecting 440, but I don't know if that's accurate. I haven't gotten anything through August. >> This is general supplies, not >> this is just general supplies. So this would be >> What's the difference? >> Toilet, paper, paper towels, cleaning supplies. It wouldn't be to work. It would be your office. >> But that that doesn't include cleaning or anything else. That's just surprise. Also, I'm assuming the town hall fire department. >> All right, council member uh >> so um looking at a different way to come up with a newsletter and I don't know how much we're getting in revenue for the newsletter, but we're spending 878 $8,700 on the newsletter. That's um certainly should be and and postage is a totally different thing but um that just seems like a lot to be spending on a new >> do you have a recommendation on that instead of doing >> if we don't I don't know where all the printing comes from but do we have to do full power every >> two yeah you only have two uh two letters >> I don't understand that but it's still um on the newsletter and I don't have the current dollar amount as far as what is um we have cut down in cost to Rogers printing um based on the fact that the it's all done in house now Lex is doing it all in house um and so that has cut down some of the money that we paid by But we still have the printing cost and the postage. Um, >> how much is the decrease on the new proposal? >> So, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we take in about $2,500 an end and um the uh cost is is uh it's it was budgeted at 8750. This cost includes um charging of the recycling point. And I don't know if that's going to fly or not. >> It's my my understanding, Mr. >> Counc. >> It's my understanding that the um items that we put in the newsletter that are related to recycling are have them move back. >> Okay. >> And what we have to do then is look at >> what's the overall price of the newsletter and then a page >> how much is this much and for printing and postage. Okay. >> It's not a big dollar amount, but it it's something else. >> So, right now, >> our score requirement is that we have um contact with our residents recycle news. >> The good thing about the newsletter is it's dropping by about Yeah. about 9% drop in the number. >> Yeah, it went down to 8,000 because we're charging 750 to um the recycling center. >> That's really the drop. >> Mr. mayor. It's a fine line because we could probably get more in advertising money, but what that means is less informational pieces put into it or we increase the pages with for the newsletter, which is more money for printing. So, >> so we're going to just give you an example for 2026. Right now, it's proposed 8,000. Out of that, we're going to get 2500 back. >> So, you're looking your true cost about $5,500. >> Okay. >> And it's a decrease because of this. >> So that's my summary. Anybody else have anything to put on the news? Would they like to see something different? >> Oh, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Spencer, go ahead, please. >> Yeah, I can't really think of anything different that would be as effective. I live right on the border of Ramsey and so I get the Ramsey newsletter and I was just thinking like just got it this weekend how I like that. Well, I don't know if there's as much. It's definitely more than ours, but it's informative. I mean, it has like message from the council, the mayor, says what's going on projects, and so, you know, I I think it serves a purpose. You know, I don't want to just do the bare minimum as a city. I I like uh Councilman Brian's uh spirit and uh intention to reduce costs. I'm all for that, but I agree with you that seems like down. I'm not really sure about what else we can do. >> I don't do football and parts. So that's an option. >> I don't think they do. >> Mr. Mayor, >> to go back to and I'm not in favor of reverting backwards on letter staff has done a really good job of of raising the bar on it. Um I just think of this s this one that's going out that has the fire department new truck on the front that's not going to look so good and um that's what we used to have and I understand council member Bryan's reasoning as far as wanting to look at lesser lesser dollars. I like the fact that we twice a year um have a communication that goes out to our residents. The only other way to do it is just have it online and then we have difficulty reaching our residents to let them know that that's where it's at. That would cut down everything other than staff. But is that a is that a better service to the residents that we save some money, but they may not have access to it? They don't know it. >> Well, I've never said to get rid of it. >> I'm just looking at op options to reduce the cost. That seems like a lot and it might not need the whole thing to be done in full color. But anyway, I'm just throwing it out there for other things to look at. >> Do you know what the cost saves? I have no idea. It could be a printer thing and the printer depends upon. >> We don't have to we don't have to solve it tonight. That's a good thing. We could approve a budget that could isn't can't we approve a budget and then do final adjustments in December. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council um tonight we're really trying to get to a preliminary leing. Um, and that's our goal is is to because next week I would like to bring back proposal to adopt a preliminary levy. You have until the end of December basically to adopt budgets, but your levy um once you adopt a preliminary levy, it cannot go up, but it can go up. I think we're talking a small enough amount that whether we made that change or not. >> So I I I think the proposal would be is if you have a recommendation cost savings, how much would that cost savings? But it is definitely something we take a look at. >> The frequency is twice a year on that. So, it's it's not often. >> Okay. Other things. Uh, >> somebody have the piece I put out. We have an extend first. I apologize for being we talked about the meeting last night said see you tomorrow night. I had my phone off so I didn't get my alerts. I was in meetings during the day and so I apologize for this. It's the first time in the few years I've done this. Um recycling center. Um these are some options that we can look at. We get from Anoka County um roughly $29,000. Within that $29,000, they will cover they will cover up to $29,000 in fees for us. Um the first one I offer is >> So I think past that is funded by the city, >> correct? And what what on average do we spend every year? >> Last year we made $14,000. The year before we lost. So >> and a credit here. >> So you can see here this is what you you want you spend annually. You know here was a year where you had some capital in here too. But uh it averages around 60,000 to $70,000. >> So last year 2024 actual was 55,000. That was our spending. >> Yep. And then the revenue side, you did get extra money from the the the grants. And so you got 46, that's $68,000 total. And they So when we do an application, you have a a a number based on your staffing levels and your population. Um that dollar amount has only gone up by minimal dollars. Maybe $15 a year over the years. $9,000. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, previous councils have have decided that they would subsidize the recycling center because it is a benefit to the residents. Um, so the pieces I put together are on this sheet. So, one is reducing staff by one employee. U, we would save $17,000, but that $17,000 is included in that 29. So, you know, I it's a not a wash, but um that would be a pro. The con is the center is unstaffed if an employee is absent. Um unauthorized items left and the city fades to hall because the unstaffed person's not there. Um potential damage to property or theft of items. Um, how do we advise residents of the closure? Um, only those that check Facebook or website right before they go up would know it's closed. So, they they'll make a trip up there and it's and it's not closed. Fear is that they'll need things because it's locked. It's supposed to be open, but it's not. Um, it takes staff time to post it as closed. Um, and then staff has to go over at 5:00 and make sure that door is closed and locked. Um, and our staff now gets our sit our administrative staff is off at 4:00. So, do we pay overtime for those those days? >> Can I can I back up? So, if we said that just say you one employee like you said, so the building's locked or are you suggesting that somebody would go unlock it? That's where you said some of the stuff disappeared by. >> Yeah. So, So, they're on automatic locks. So, it should unlock automatically in the morning and it would lock at 5:00 if the door is closed. >> But if the last resident in doesn't close the door, then that door is open. >> Thank you. >> And either way, SC somebody needs to go make sure that door is closed or the building is open overnight. Does public works work the same hours? >> Mr. Mayor is usually dead bolted. >> So meaning the door can actually be dead bolted, not on the timer because that's happened plenty plenty of times where the door stays dead bolted. >> So that that that way yes the door is on a timer. The actual door would unlock at 9 andor unlock again at 5 or but because the dead bolts on it's just still locked. If the door is open, it doesn't fit. >> If we know somebody wasn't there the following day, it would be dead bolted at some point in time and then no one will be able to get in. That's happened to me plenty of Saturdays. Even though it's been unlocked, doors still shut, but it's a disservice to residents if they go up and they think it's going to be open and it's not. Um so again over time for public works administrative staff to to make sure that the the doors clo closed and locked at at night. Um center would only have two Saturdays a month. Um and then how how do you decide what those two Saturdays would be? because definitely going to be difficult to find an employee whether it's within our existing two employees that want to work under Saturday and people like the Saturday open um if we lay off by seniority um and I don't know the seniority we could have a female working by themselves based on our ex existing two employees um we could have the short-term unemployment cost of um laying off an employee. Um we had had discussion in the office about keeping these at the recycling center. Um that's probably not going to be an option if it's just uh staffed by one person. It's a safety issue that whether it's just checks or as credit card. We've not talked about taking cash there. Again, that's a safety issue. Um, I don't know and I've not had conversation with staff as to whether the council goes with this option of going down to one if either of the two existing staff would stay. So, we could find ourselves possibly with no staff. And I think we can all agree that that's not a real glamorous job that people are knocking down the door and applying for. So we may find ourselves um with nobody working the council but these are all options you're proposing. So we have option to change nothing >> or these are other options we're >> review my my goal is my opt my suggestion would be to stay where we're at. Um second one is closing the building to the public and making changes to the structure so residents can drop items 247. The pro on that is you can bought things 247. The con is you have onetime costs in making adaptions to the building and we have limited space in our walls to make the openings for the different items. Um if we did that um and people No, you're not. So, and if so, if we did that, then you're going to have to have public works go in there and take care of that. So, um um so public works, we'd have to pay public works. Um which are at a higher rate than our recycling staff is. Um we'd have expense of purchasing larger containers. Um, if we just have a pass through the door, we would not be taking oil filters, antifreeze, bikes, bulbs, cardboards, and papers, scrap metal, tires, vehicle, vet, batteries, um, at the center. Um, we could also lose score funds because our score fund is based on us being a full service recycling center. So, if we go down with the services we offer, that 29,000 is going to go down. And I don't have what that would go down to. Um, I'd have to get that. Um, the other option is hosting specific events. Um, some some cities have once a month, once a quarter events where they have a vendor at the location and the vendor um takes all of the materials similar to what we do on our two days a month or two days a year where we have the the roll offs outside and stuff, but the vendor gets all the money on it. It's probably less expensive to drop a refrigerator, but none of that revenue comes back to the state and we're still staffing it on that day. Um the other is um and again on that we'd have to use public works employees. So we lose users um we lose revenue and again possible loss of funds if we're not not considered a drop off closing the center completely. It's no longer an expense so we can wipe it out out of the budget. We could use the structure for public works um fire department storage. Um, we can get some onetime revenue from selling the equipment. The con is that customers will our residents will get customers with residents like that service. Um, the fear is the ditch something will increase because they can't bring things here. So, we have public court staff loan increases and public costs. There is in the contract with the county if you close your recycling center, they have the ability to back bill you for items and money. Now, it's not specific as to what and you wouldn't know it until you tell them. And they provided us a $9,000 grant for a roll. They provided us grant money. So when Lorie showed um capital, those were extra grants that we got to fix the inside, put heater in, things like that. They could ask for that money back if that recycling center is no long that structure is no longer going to use as recycling. So we could cost ourselves money by closing completely. Um we would still have to adhere to state, county, and metropolit council requirements when it deals with recycling. So, if there are things dropped, we're still going to have to get rid of them. We don't have any revenue coming into them. They're just dropping in front of the building. Um, so we we will have expenses there. Again, my recommendation is just to stay where we are and just try um to manage costs. Um, but I think our staff does a good job of of tracking things and I'm looking closer at budgets and you know some things we make money on cardboard. We make money scrap metal we typically make money on and we haul it out. Um, newspaper the last newspaper and plastic and glass we don't make much of. And sometimes we pay we pay the hall and we pay the end user. You know, maybe the end user payments 15 or $25, but it's a complete cost to us. But being a fullervice recycling center, we have to take those things at a minimum that are are eligible to be picked up with your regular, >> which your $29,000 helps cover that. Council member um you know we list the 29,875 that's what the county says that they're going to get >> every year though you go back and and if they have money left over >> then this city is one of the cities that gets that money first because so every other year you gotten extra money above and beyond,000 based on this expenditures, but I can only budget for 29,000. And that's what I I'm projecting and that's that's why we're seeing this $19,000 loss is that I'm only projecting 29,000. We might get 40,000 and then we won't have that, you know. >> So last year was a plus of 14,000. the years before that when there was a loss, is that only because additional capital money was put in? >> Well, there was additional capital money and and um higher hauling costs here. Maybe there was less um other there was less county grant money. You didn't get 46, but we got 38. >> Still still very good. >> Yeah, >> it's another 10,000. >> Right. Right. I definitely like to open up the council for any discussion if they'd like to talk about any changes to uh council radio, thanks for making some proposals and providing options. >> Okay, council, please go ahead. Um, yeah, I mean Mary clearly knows a lot more about recycling center than I do. Someone is a curator. Um, but it, you know, I wouldn't be opposed to dropping it down to like a one once a month Saturday thing. I think that still provides a service. But what I'm hearing is that we would be at risk of losing our 21,000 in funding from accounting. So, we wouldn't even possibly save any money. Maybe it cost us more money to drop them. So, I I'm a council in the rainbow. as is unless there are any other ideas. >> Brian, >> um yeah, so some it goes back to some months, some years we make money, some years we lose money. Last year we made money in 23 we um you know we lost money and it all goes here and here and there. Um I know I sent and I was just curious. So the um Councilman Ringo the curbside stuff is included in our work right now >> the >> curbside pickup. >> So so as being a a recycling center you have to accept maybe I didn't say that you have to at a minimum for a recycling center whether it's a full full service or not you have to accept the items that are accepted curbside. So in your home buckets of metal, glass, plastic, paper. >> I understand that question. >> Okay. So >> we talked previously about getting the garbage haulers, their numbers for recycling to get them included in in our in our numbers for pounds and all that kind of thing. Has that been included? >> So Mr. Mr. House member, excuse me, council member Bry, our tenant report when we supply that to the county, we do it twice a year. Those numbers have always been included in that tenants report. I think what hurts us on our tendency report is when you go to Leage, you go to ACE, you go to Republic and whoever else, they're giving you the the numbers that have an address that says Neland Minnesota. So if you it's possible we're losing people because some of them are going to say Ramsey and some are going to say River St. Francis, but they do give us the numbers. So when I look at the resident numbers, they weren't adding up to 1500 residents. So I have tried to work with them. The only way to do to make sure we are getting credit for each and every resident in now then is to go through line by line of all of their customers to make sure that our addresses are um specific and say now then well they're not going to let me go into their documents and do that. I offered but they're not going to let me do that and they're not going to do that. So because they're supplying numbers and whether it goes to St. Francis or it goes to Ramsey or they're giving the numbers they don't care how it's broken down but but those numbers are um in our country. No, my um the other thing is I I um did send information into Natalie, but I just must not have gotten here on the report. Um when we So when if we say we have to accept all those things, does it have to be every time? Does do we have to be if we did a once a month thing, could we do everything? And I mean, I'm just trying to come up with other ways where if we can do some sort of hybrid model where there's some daytime stuff, but we're not necessarily taking everything, especially if we um if the local garbage haulers have that capability to take the glass and the plastic and whatnot. But then when we have our event, whenever it is, we would we still would be taking all that stuff like we do now. um and looking to just if we if we were open at it during the week that that we're we're reducing the amount of things that are coming in that day to to try to to theoretically save on some shipping costs. The other thing that I proposed was looking at I know at one time there was uh I know we talked about this a couple times trying to find out ways again we're looking to increase revenue um is um by storing by bundle by by um um using the wet packs and keeping those separate because at one point in time I believe somebody was giving a higher costs for recycling those and like when we did the recycling tour um um kept the number one plastic separate because they got a different price. I don't know if that's still the case now. Um, you know, just again looking for other options to to Oh, and copper. It might not be everything, but obviously we know it's copper. Copper and um things like um disc brakes, you know, get a regular a higher price than just um scrap. If there's some way auction even if it was have an extra bin of some sort that we could sort the copper out because we're going to get more revenue as copper is copper than just a scrap. member, forgive me. I can you explain me the benefit of being able to include the tonnage recycling tage that the power >> we are the city each city is given a do a tonnage amount that they have to make every year in order to qualify for funds. So, and we make that with with the numbers we provide from our haulers um both from the center and from the residential haulers. We make our tonnage. So, we can make more tonnage. It's probably not going to give us any more money, but if we come under that m So, currently currently we're open Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. Correct. 115 Tuesday and Thursday night noon and Saturday. Have we have we ever done any um current studies say we kind of put traffic on days? >> Mr. Mayor, council member um staff does that. We do it every day and um the numbers are are there are people coming in during those hours. One thing that I just recently did and I have to follow up with the county is using the numbers that staff put together um based on a meeting that we had in December with the county um is seeing if the county would supplement us because we have a large number of um I could go on my phone get email um a large number of non-residents that are either ina county we We have themastic. We have them in Sherbet. Um, but we have them tracked by city and I'm asking for the county to look at that to see if they will give us additional reimbursement. They're not going to reimburse us for Sherurn County and I task then we've had as far as St. Paul once a while in there but I have asked for them to look at the numbers for non residents. Um but the recycle centers have to be open to everyone. >> Yeah. >> Are there so those those non-resident some of them are traveling distance. >> There are some >> and there's there's got to be what do you have a typical reason? Is there is there a one or two or three particular items and Christie is raising her hand that that they happen to call in >> and Christy would be the one who would answer that. We've had people come as far as even further than some of them. And the reason they stay is because we allow it and there's no other place for them to go. They can't get anything. That's the thing that's kind of a pet peeve when we're talking about that discussion. It's supposed to be open for everybody, but what behooves another city to even open a recycle center when we will let people come from anywhere and everywhere and the bulk of the stuff we take in. I mean, if you think about that, that's big. That's huge. And and that's the comments that I'm getting from people coming from social distance because we don't charge for anything and we don't check. We asked. >> So, are they are are they bringing in are they bringing in the typical uh single sword items or are they bringing in other larger items that they can't recycle those? >> Oh, but Mr. Mayor to council member Glazer, if they bring in something that is a single sort, that's free to everybody. We get the revenues off of that. Um so, if they bring in cardboard, they get the revenue off the metal. Um if they bring in an appliance, they're paying for the um some of them I they come here because their cities don't and I don't know what sugar and IA and um Ramsey County I don't know what their requirements are as far as having available the residents have no idea but people do come um but if it's a payable item they >> well yeah I don't I don't have a problem with non-residents coming as long as long as non-residents aren't causing u having a negative impact to the recycling center budget. >> Mr. Mayor, >> I don't I don't believe that it's a negative impact on it because >> we're either taking things for free and we get those revenues when they bring them into the the brings them in or they bring something that they have to pay >> and then we get the revenue off. But on that same note, Mary, don't you have to think you get the revenue, but you have to think some of the stuff you lose money when you make anything like glass and I don't make money on cardboard now that we're doing dry cardboard, but again that fluctuates so much the market changes weekly. >> So what's good this week is not good next week. Um to council member Brian's questions, um the wet pack we Yeah, you brought that up before we don't buy a case that cardboard where it's got the glass glossy outside. It's not cardboard per se. It's not coordinating. >> Yeah. What we But what we when we start to look at that, what we have to find out is so right now um Barthole comes and they load up their flatbed with all the bales of car. I'd have to find out from them. Can they mix? They have 12 bales of regular cardboard and three bales of wet pack. I have to find that out because other words, we're having two shipping costs. And what is it? How long does it take us in wet packs to have enough ship? Because it's $185 every time we come to pick up something. Um plastic. Um we've not separated because We only have one one bor if we need a second bor that's conversation um copper that >> I don't know you know it probably is whether it's work pleasure that >> I know Christine did you want to bring up any other concerns about revenue or any other comments that you had about recycling center? >> Well, I know everybody wants to make more money on stuff and I get that. You know, there's some to me there's some other things that you can do. Um, again, those other recycle centers that are charging people that are non residents, not much, not breaking the bank, but making it so that they're just not coming here because we let them write everything for free. Um, and and I'm not saying they charge them hundreds and hundreds of dollars. That in businesses, I mean, you you can't just take a look at what we're making on something. You have to think of the nano. When people bring a huge box truck full of cardboard from Zimmerman, that takes a lot of man hours for Don and I or whatever to build that. So thinking what we make off that and offsetting what it costs to deal with that cardboard. I mean, sometimes we get two or three of those in a day. And I know I've gone round and round. I've been here almost three and a half years now and I've gone round and round not with you per se, Mr. Mayor, but a previous mayor and saying that they pay property tax. I understand they pay property tax. So do I. But I don't make money off of my house. They make money off their business. and to sit and say that they can bring all their stuff and that means every construction person. We've had construction people come there with their stuff, you know, uh and they're not even from here. So my point is taking a look at people that are utilizing our center for you know what they're getting out of it because they happen to be building a house but they happen to be from somewhere else and they're building a house up the street and words out oh go bring your stuff to then you know people from South St. Paul we had a guy bringing stuff from South St. off on a job because his boss said on your way home because he lived in. >> If I can interject, Mr. Mayor, these these businesses >> they they're they're saving money by doing so. Well, they're reducing their their rolloff costs >> um by by bringing it someplace where they can dispose of it for free. So, and and that's I I know that we've had this discussion before about especially non-resident businesses hauling things like that here for free when there's labor involved because it's not always broken down the way we ask to be broken down so that you can just put it in in the bor and and bail the material. You have to break it take the time to break it down >> and styrofoam plastic wire bands. I mean, it's it's a job, you know, and they're getting by. I was taught nothing's in life for free and my tax dollars I I'm a resident up here and my tax dollars to support a business that doesn't support Maliban. I mean, does that make any sense to any of you? It doesn't to me. >> I just got a quick question. You mentioned something about there's wire bailing and um styrofoam now. Also, when we're taking it in, you guys don't take stable. >> No. >> So, is it because it's hidden in the cardboard? Um, >> they don't have stuff broken down properly. >> So, maybe that could be a requirement we could be looking at is making sure it's broken down, sized, right, for the bail. Maybe that's something we could look at to make it easier. And then you would also know that there's no hidden styrofoam in there because it it's wonderful if we can recycle it whether it's here. I I got to tell you, and it's it's not ending up in a dump. So, I think the concept is good, but maybe we put some requirements to help out. So, we're not getting extra things. >> So, Mr. Mayor, >> we're um Christy and Don do good do do a good job of placing when things are dropped down. We have containers there. We have the sizes written there on our sheet on the website when we post on Facebook when you put it in the newsletter. All of that is there. We don't take the styrofoam, you know, that kind of stuff. Um I think it's more prevalent when the big big oops the big box of >> like a business comes. Yes. Um or when the center is not staffed, >> you know, if there's if if this if if the employees are not there like you're at the office doing something, it never fails. It's like something gets it's like they're watching for you to make sure, oh, they're gone. We're gone. Let's go drop this crap, you know? I mean, it's just amazing. every time. >> Yeah, every time. >> But I mean the council could make the decision not to take any business card, but then sadly it is up to the staff to try to enforce that and people are not um are not going to be receptive to that as council member Glazer says all of a sudden they start have recycling at their base of business. It's going to cost a month >> and it's expensive >> and it is and and technically I believe that businesses are supposed to have their own procedures for getting the their cardboard and it's not at a local residential recycling center. But is that a burden we want to place on our employees to police that with people? You know, and do you just not accept it from non non businesses? do you know I I don't know that's a discussion. Um but also too the less material that comes in the less revenue we make from that >> question Mr. Mayor members of the council. I just want to make clarification. Soup taxes do not support recycling. Everyone knows that. >> No, thank you. >> They don't even at this point. >> I mean, think all I'm saying, think about bootleggers. We have two restaurants here for a while. They're one of the restaurants who bring all the glass in their cans. >> And that was at a point that we were like making nothing on glass and we had to separate the colors. Again, I just I'm trying to keep us in business because people love the recycle center and I feel very proud what we've turned it into with Mary's help and and office staff. I mean, constantly having people say how clean it is and I will agree. I take pride in that because I'm clean and clean and I can't stand this. It stumped when I started. It smelled like garbage beer and sour milk. That's what it sound like. And we have really really curved that and I'm very proud of that because and I work really really hard and again I just have a problem and people have put into something that they can just come here and I will tell you I know for a fact somebody that's that I've gotten know very well. The word is out that now they won't let anybody come from any distance at any business and it seems to increase constant. >> Would you say that you have to accept this? >> We It's a residential recycling center. So Anopa County is saying that we have to accept anything from another county. Anoka County. Yeah. Not >> right. But again, so so we can go down to just mail and businesses for cardboard, any other materials. We can go down to just the Nova County residents for all items and then place the burden on our staff to police. >> They're trying to enforce that. >> Yes. And I I'm not comfortable knowing how people treat people and how people believe that government employees um are there to be degraded and belittled and not to be thought of being smart. Um I'm not interested in putting that burden on ourselves. >> Mr. Mayor Rango, how about if we just charge for people that that are coming from other locations? >> Well, and I will have that conversation because I don't know what other ones are charging. I know that Rapids charges for styrofoam. >> They're the only ones that take it. Um, but I will have a conversation with with Christie and I will check with Sue the doll. Um, >> so that's not refusing anything. That's just asking a set of fee. >> Yeah. So then how and then so how do you decide how many pop bottles is the charge at or can you know it it's not going to be an easy thing to to try to do? >> Um may not be but on the same token if you once people know rules >> trust me it gets out. The world's pretty small believe it or not it is. And the thing is um not exuberant, but if you start a business, don't you have a business plan to get rid of your waste of what you're doing for your business? And if that means cazillion pop cans like a bar and their booze, bottles, and all that stuff, isn't that their responsibility? And if you've got tons of cardboard, like lakeside cabinets, you should see what we get from them and the garden. And I like those people. It's not that I don't like them. Some people kind of think it's because they don't like people. I pay my taxes. I live here. And again, we're talking overkill. If someone comes in once a year with a truckload, sometime we get four and five trucks. And I'm talking big box trucks way to the top. I even use plumbing on the plumbing. They're great people. But we get box trucks. We get probably eight of those a year. Again, I'm not saying I have all the answers, council members, Mr. Mayor. I'm not saying I do, but I see it an abuse of how kind we are here in that. I really do on business and >> I don't think we mentioned anything about not letting down businesses come. >> There was conversation late last year was that we talked about um that this is a residential square money's for residential um What how would we go about determining if we're going to allow somebody that's nonresident? Um how do we decide how to build and the example is part of how do we determine how we're going to charge for how much that it's it's I don't know how you decide that I don't and again then that places that burden on the staff. Do we need additional scales? Do we need additional containers? >> Can I provide a recommendation? Let's move forward if we want to vote on what we what we've got here and then we'll come back and say if you want to charge here's how we do it. It would be an additional RCA. We can review and approve it. >> Okay. >> Did that work for everybody? >> All right. So, we've got a vote. We've got uh four options listed on here. Um >> Mr. Mayor, >> council member Ram. I would move option number one that we stay as is with our existing two employees um and that staff as they have been doing having discussions and trying to determine how we can lower costs how we can make changes. >> So maybe that's option number five because you got option number one here is reduce staff. >> So can I just say call that option number five is leave as >> yes just leave as it. I'm yeah option number five. >> Okay. So you you have a motion to leave as is. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Anybody like to second that motion? >> I'll second. Second. Is there any other discussion? >> But we're we're leaving as is with the expect with the expectation that we're we're going to make a serious effort to investigate how we can uh >> make this more balanced from the budget standpoint. Yes. Which which we have been doing. I mean that we'll continue those efforts. >> Yeah. I I guess I just would like to there's been a lot of a lot of talk and I've talked with with recycling staff and I guess I would like to empower them to you know help us move forward with some things. >> So I mean increase of charge non-residents potentially businesses bring a recommendation forward. >> Yes. Yes. >> I think we're all on that. I I definitely think there's some ideas floating around. How do we construct them? It might be another conversation, but I just think it's different than this one that was proposed. >> All right. Any other discussion? >> Okay. Um, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Stays leave as is. Okay, that takes care of that. Okay. Can we go back to number four, which is back on the budget items? Um, Chief Miller, we have you here also. We have to give you an opportunity to speak. Is there anything else on the budget that you would like to bring up and talk about? >> Um, I would, uh, Mr. Mayor, council members, if there's questions about the warning sirens, I'll be happy to answer those questions. Um, I don't have any other input on the budget from that. >> Mr. Mayor, please go. >> Chief, have we any conversations with the um cyber manufacturing in regards to the decibel study? So, Mr. Ranch House members um we contacted them earlier in the year um about doing a study. Um the issues that we're having with the study right now is is funding. So even if we have a segment of 7 million sirens um we're going to struggle with the funding and really what we're looking at is looking to see um emergency management federal government um kind of settle down on the chaos of the dust because there's no grants out there and so what I'm hoping for is 26 we'll do a study early in 26 figure out what we actually need based on what the county has because county has new protocols weather through cellular. So we're looking at what the county has. So in essence, we shouldn't have to have as many as as maybe the old study said we had to have. Um and then if FEMA kind of does sell around FEMA and the gas right now in the federal government if that sells hopefully grant opportunities will open up in 26 or 27 because these sirens are about 20 to $30,000 per siren and I think 30 is actually the the close number but so can I clarify is you're right now there isn't grant money for the infrastructure the equipment itself or is do we need a grant to have the manufacturer do a decel study. >> We don't need a grant to to do decel study, but the counties also has new technology for cellular. So, kind of putting the prep for the horse because if they've got the capabilities to do more cellular notifications, >> then we don't need as many seconds. And so I'm trying to balance the two um that didn't you talk about saying >> uh I've never I've never been told a number based on this study that's been done. Um but you know as an example because I I did some research earlier on in the year and um there are there are counties that are moving more towards >> cellular and I actually you can go on to your your Apple iPhone or you go on your Android and there are settings that you takes about 30 seconds to change the settings and I get emergency weather notifications nowadays. >> Absolutely. Mr. M the technology keeps increasing each year. Um and um I know county emergency management that actually take care of the weather notifications. Um and so as again as their capabilities increase um they can geoence the the areas. So yes, you can do it on your phone depending on what app you have, but it may not necessarily catch the counties um system. And so um and so taking a look at at what's out there that the the study that was done in I believe it was 2006 or 2008 that we have said I think we need six um sirens but that's also taking out that none of the infrastructure broke up too. So, um, so again, I think in 26 we'll come back with a study, come back with the technology that's been updated and upgraded and I and I, you know, hopefully we'll see a reduction in how many sirens actually and what the county is capable of doing on the technology side. So, with all that said, my proposal would be to to put funding in for one side for next year, even though the study's not done. So we have a budget budgeted amount where we can move forward with one siren. I I think for a long time we've done nothing on this and I'd really like to add one. Now what I don't want to do is go spend a ton of money and add four and then the study come back. So I want to be I'm being a little bit concerned and just say if we put if the correct amount is 30,000 that's what you number that's I would like to budget that amount then we can look and say we do the study we can add one next year. Now, is there one of the questions I don't know is if you add four in one year, is it more cost effective? Don't know that that question, but I would like to budget for one. >> Mr. Mayor, House, I I don't believe there's probably cost savings in and multiple sirenations. Um, this community being what it is, trying to find easements that we can put the the sirens in place and something and the fact that we probably need to do battery sol. So, the installation the installation because they're done at that time. So, so possibly right now it might not be a possible. >> Um, is there any other discussion? Um, I know Mr. Council member Blazer and I talked about the weather siren. The phone is definitely the technology gets better. That's probably the biggest argument to say, do you really need it? And you could argue it and say, yes, you don't need it. Yes, you do. Every other city around us has them. We have one. So, if a severe weather comes in and you have your phone, you might get notified. If you don't have your phone in your hand, you might not. And that's where the weather sirens come in. So, I don't know that there's a right answer. But what I don't want to do is do nothing. If we have a a tornado come through now and we have one siren and we lose a resident because we didn't have any sirens, to me, it's a shame on us. So, that's the way I looked at. Do we need 10? No, I don't need all but maybe the answer is four. Maybe it's six. I don't know what that >> Mr. Mayor. >> Well, I while I can um Well, I don't disagree that we need a more emergency system. I I don't know how adding budgeting to one side. Where do you put it? How do you it it's who gets the who gets the benefit because you know you can put that you you know locate that geographically somewhere in town there's a large percentage of our residents that are never going to hear that one site. So how how do you how do you do that and tell well we're going to put it here. We're not going to put anything else anywhere else. You might not hear it. There's a good chance you're not going to hear it, but we're going to put one over here because we'd rather do something than do nothing. I I don't know that that's necessarily the best approach. I my preference would be to follow the chief's lead on this as far as you know doing a study and get a study done because at least we would have a better idea if we are if we have to have a siren because the the county the county's coverage or what they have to offer may not cover at the time at least we we're not just throwing darts at the dart board and I think you know having having a study done figuring out what our other options are so that can make the best decision for the money that we're going to spend. >> Um I believe we probably get a study done this fall. Um we can have a a fairly good idea of what that will look like for siren coverage. Um, and then we then it's a matter of just whatever that number is, then we can start to build that out or at least we have a plan. Um, so I I don't see an issue with that and putting one siren in next year. You're just building on that plan. So whatever that is. Um, and inventory taking account what we have for for geo coverage for settler and other things out there. We still are a rural community. We're a farming community. people don't always have their homes out and about in the in the land and so we do need some side coverage what that will look like we'll just have the complete >> yeah I was just going to agree with you mayor I think I think your thought of just budgeting for one summer next year is sensible um You know, I'm hearing the chief say we can do the study, I guess, as well. But I I I I also think there's merit to his initial position and waiting to see when the county comes out with what they require so that, you know, we can do proper testing. You know, I'd hate to pay for testing and have wasted test because something comes up and I I don't think it's, you know, picking and choosing to just do one side of the next year. I mean, budgeting something is better than nothing. Baby steps. What I wouldn't want to see happen is get the study and have it go like the road study applying last year or two years ago where nothing is done because it's $10 million slap in the face or something. I mean, it's no different than the picking wish roads. You know, there's lots of we do, but we do a couple every year. So, if we can only do one siren next year, but the study says we move three, then we do, you know, one each year following that or two the following year. But I I agree with you that it would be nice to get in the budget anticipating we're going to need at least one side instead of the other. That's my pleasure. Now, a great example of the digital technology settler is what happened at the state fair last year or two years ago when they had the huge storm came through and they had to evacuate the fairgrounds and everybody everybody's phones were going off before the silence and they got notification. Is is it is it not is it are we not fulfilling a a a mandate for public safety if we educate our residents on how to use their cellular phones to to you know to to get notifications and and they'll get a notification where wherever they happen to be at because it it picks up location on the phone. So as as opposed to spending money that we may not have to spend depending on what the countyy's so Mr. Cross I think that I think the example is a is a good example the reason why it's faster than siren obviously but there's um in public safety frame redundancy, right? So when cellular network fails, the silence don't sence fail. So um I think it's a I think it's a very prudent um way to to look at public safety and and we can merge the two technologies, but they're redundant to each other. So one failure And that's why you know we look at battery because that isn't system. So um I think it would be prudent to to get the study completed this fall. um figure out what our needs are going to be, what capabilities come, budget for the next year and um at a minimum and because we don't need some but that is yet to be determined but I think that we always don't rely on Texas. Maybe I missed what the dollar amount was. What are we looking at for >> uh Mr. Mayor Council owners? Red Wild will do the study for us for cheap because again it benefits their company better they'll do that sorry we'll do that study because >> and it's it's not intensive >> so if If we said to go ahead with the study with that the results of that study is look at what the county is doing. If we budget for 30,000 and we find that based on what the county is going to be doing or whatever we don't need it then we don't spend but it is there and I have to be honest I Dan can you tell me what the is it right? Okay. I I'm thinking that's what it was. So, I'm looking at the map and yeah, where do you decide to put it? Um, based on population and what distance? I hear the one from Rams because I'm down in the southeast corner, so I don't imagine, but I think if we can get a a study done for minimum hours or none, I'm glad to show one and see what happens next year. >> Chief, could you work on trying to get the study done this fall? >> Yes. >> Customer Brian, did you have any feedback? >> Oh, I'm just trying to figure out We've been going over the budget several times and now that comes up tonight going, do you have options for where we can find $30,000 in the existing budget? >> I don't have any options. >> No, but this is uh to me it's a public safety thing. Um, and I think it should have done about 10. So, do I know where we're going to cut $30,000 out? No. I got a couple other areas that I want to discuss, not add to, but uh potentially take away, but I don't think it's going to add up to $30,000. But do we know for you know that that 20 to 30,000 number has been thrown around? Is that just the equipment? Is that equipment in installation? Do we is Rob Schiller Rob Schiller give us a a number on a firm number on that? Is it is it battery power backup? Is it is it connected to the grid? >> Most um I know the city that I work for full time just did it installed so I can get pretty precise numbers but it was right around that $30,000 installed. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council that $30,000 of um But not right away. >> This is where I was kind of going that there's probably 20 things that we could top out 500 or that cover the $30,000 without having to raise. talking about the proposition ones. >> Oh, there's plenty. But again, if that's if that's where we want to, if that's one option that the council is okay with looking at, plus we are in September, we're have there's several land items that are projected to have to be under budget that um for 25 that we theoretically could adjust the 26 budget later this year as we get closer to more accurate year end numbers. And then there's a really good chance that there could be 20, 30, $50,000 that could be >> I like your concept, right? So, one of the things you could look at is say, "Hey, we can map up the the budget as a whole right now and say this is where we're at. We can propose the levy and then we come back one more time and look where the projections are and see what we can do to treat um going that direction." So, we can close our budgeting process right now, >> but we come back in I'll say November. I don't know what the best timing is and look and say these are the eight areas or 10 areas we can look at that we could potentially save up 10 $15,000 whatever the case is and we look at them because we'll have pretty accurate projections for that >> okay because it's a little bit early on projection side we talked several times about at least based on the projections that there might be that the there there was some equipment that the fire department was looking at purchasing this year that might be able to still purchase this year >> which is the $20,000 >> next year and that's $20,000 for >> the airbags So, >> and would that be able to Well, as chief right now, would you be able to get that purchased because you were under budget and purchase the airbags this year? >> Correct. If we Mr. R House is if we are under budget and could that be done before we come into the budget meeting as we're talking about so we got follow that could be 20,000 right there. That would be very very helpful. I agree. So when would you be able to do the purchase and understand if you're going to be under budget and purchase that item also? >> M council members I would I would venture a guess at at early to mid November is kind of where we're at financial. >> So does that mean like around 1 December when we come back and meet again to review the budget and finalize it? >> Something like that. I think we very very close >> knowing my opinion that that would be worthwhile anyway knowing that we were considerably under budget last year >> that we should be able to if we're considerably under budget again that we can look at reducing the 2026 budget. Now I'm not saying that gives that gives staff curt to curt launch to spend what's there. I mean not that they would be but I mean I hope this is and I'm not saying they would. I'm just saying, you know, we're trying to stay stay in or under budget because there's there's other places that that money can be used. >> I I think it's a great Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Glazer, please. >> Um if if we brought our salary increases in line with our neighbors to the immediate north, south, and east, Oak, St. Francis, and Randy, that's 124 right there. >> That's the next one I wanted to go to. Is everybody okay if we shift from S weather? So, are we okay adding steer wire to the side for 30,000 right now? >> I'm getting some yes and some no. And then with the concept that we come back in December and we try to well with the chief taking 20 out that that would help, but really looking for another $10,000 in savings. So, our budget's really not increasing. Everybody okay with that concept? I don't necessarily want to put it I don't necessarily add it into the budget as a specific. I don't want to be increasing the budget $30,000 which which Lori just did. >> That's exactly what we would have to do right now because we don't know where the savings is and come back until December. So the levy would go forward like this and then we come back and we reduce the budget before it's enacted. I don't see a better way to do it because all the projections are only going to get tighter and we'll have a better understand. Is this something that that do we do we pick devoted that we want to add? Is that the best ever? You guys tell me from experience. What's the best way to talk about it? >> That's just why I'm trying to get it. I I'm confident the money's there without without necessarily putting in the $30,000 increasing the $30,000. And I completely understand we have until December that the le can be changed. >> The le can be lower. >> It can be reduced. >> To be reduced, >> right? So it can be changed. It can be lower just >> but it's only $17,515. >> I think we maybe before we go there let's talk about the salary increase because that could be some great so you want to start that off that conversation. >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, regardless regardless of whether we're talking emergency weather sirens and while I am fully in support of giving our our staff raises, I think I think 5% is is out of line with what our immediate neighbors are doing. Um, and it's 3% is more in line with, you know, what businesses in our area are doing. So the total of 5% is up to 37,000 >> 31,000. >> So going from the 5% to the 3% that's $4,000. >> Let's let Council member Blizzard finish. So I I think I I I fully accept the fact that that in the past government has has done the public sector has done things differently in regards to uh wage increases. Um, personally, I think that's unre some of the things that have been done have been unrealistic based on the fact that they're spending somebody else's money and we have an obligation to be to be responsible to the the taxpayers with those dollars and and therefore I think city pay increases need to be more in line with what the uh the private sector. >> Would your recommendation need to go 3%? >> It would. Yes. >> Okay. So, we got a recommendation sponsor. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, I I guess I would just like to point out I don't have the numbers because I wasn't prepared to look at this, but I'm looking at whatever this is in front of us. So, I think it's something that we put together for step increases and it shows the cost >> all the astron. And so, the uh cost of living adjustment, yeah, it's 3% for St. Francis, but they also have step increases. So, they've already predetermined their marriages. That's the equivalent of America. So that's not if we just drop all of our raises down to 3%, we're missing those steps. So everybody else, you know, I think that we're trying to compare ourselves to are still getting merit raises. They just have them predetermined as steps. And I I know I I keep hearing this argument or not argument, but point about corporate versus public employment. And I just I don't think that's accurate. I mean, if you want to produce some data showing that, you know, corporate raises or raises in the private sector are not at that level, I'd be happy to look at it. I mean, I'm just looking at the state website right now and it says the private sector uh last year was 4.9% average wage increase and I think it's pretty consistently right about that 5%. So, I don't think this is a matter of public employees being out of step with private employers. Um, I think we're right in line with them at 5%. Um, I think it's fair. It's reasonable. Um, to just never ever get a merit raise and lock someone in salary that they were hired at and only get cost of living adjustments for inflation. I mean, no company does that. I I I would love to see that. >> That's that's not true. I can I and just just as an example, Council Member Swinson, and the I'm I'm just going to go back to let's see. So, I I worked for a nonprofit uh my first year and a half here in Minnesota in 97. Uh uh going to 98. Um but I worked for three corporations before I went into business myself. Two were utilities, um and one was a uh a contractor. And the the only time I got a a ser you know what would be considered anything meritorious is when I made a change in position. So, and I wish I would have kept the documentation over the last 20 plus years, but I can show where, you know, my manager got a pool of money that was say 3% of of what his salary budget was, and it was up to him. Now, somebody might have gotten more than 3%. Because of performance, but the the manager only got, you know, 2 and a half to three and a half%. And that's in my experience in corporate America. I did I >> you have you have to you have employees that you you're going to get a pool of money for increases starting January 1. >> I would just give one example. The only the only difference on that's exactly that I that I've seen over the last 10 years is that piece. But there is some additional dollars where I have to make an adjustment. It's similar to this step. If I have somebody that's out of line in their position, an additional dollars I can put to it that is greater than a 3%. But I'll say for them 95% of the employees they you get 3%. We got 3% last year. You take that 3% you're above average. You could get more, some are going to get less. Some people have to wage scale get less. So the concept is good. What our city is missing right now is they don't have a step process. So, I talked to Natalie about this and and I got to bring this up and I said, "All right, this is something that we're not going to solve before we go into budget season this year. It's something that we need to put on as our one of our key priorities so we can come into this next year to say, "All right, what is our step process?" There's many examples right here. So, out of this I I I have more agreement than disagreement with what you're saying. It's you get this amount of money and it's not an unlimited thing. It's not a 5%. We got 3% guys and that's what you got. That's it. Now, I had four employees I was able to make an adjustment. Out of the whole company, it was one or two% that we made an adjustment. So, just keep that in. >> All right. I don't even know who's next, so I apolog for for being in public service for 37 years. Um, League of Minnesota citizen and Gallagher, one of the the firms that they used to to look at um public employment agents. Um I have never worked for a city that doesn't have a step process and the step process is how they rate the position. And so the city I currently work for has a nstep process in their in their position wages. Um and they rate that from 85% to 115%. So depending on who you hire, how they hire, and what their their U knowledge is is where they get placed on the step step scale. So um usually people who have who have uh education, training and experience will get placed somewhere about midpoint or or a little bit more than midpoint on the step scale. And as you progress through your years of employment, you get to the top scale and during that employment >> by knowledge, skills and ability, education, all of those >> correct and and tenure with the tenure with the organization. So as you walk through that, you walk through those steps. Um that is has always been separate of cola. And so cola has always been separate off the step scale because you're training, you're learning, you're you're getting better at that that um at that organization's structure. And and the difference I think between government and business is there is no school really out there for governments to to learn how governments work and how they operate. Every government, every city I've worked for has operated differently. And so the longer you're there, the more experience you have, the tenure that you get, the the more you're worth, if you will, the position. And so, you know, you lose somebody that has 30 some years of experience within the position, it takes a lot to recover that. So, that's why the step step scale is out there for that's just what I' what I've known over 37 years experience. So, a little bit of an explanation. That's all I want to >> What was next? >> Sponsor. >> Yeah, I mean I I just would like to agree with the chief. I mean the steps are the the key distinction here. I mean if we want to move to a step system, I'm all for that. It removes us sort of arguing and yearly debate and all of that. Um I'm all for that. But to just ignore the fact that all these other cities have steps and look at their cola and say we should match that. I mean, we're not matching that. We are we are undercutting it because they still have their stress. So, I mean, if we're going to reduce it to 3%, I think we got to acknowledge that we are giving the smallest raises out of our whole region because everybody else has stepped in. Is this the paper you're looking at here? The one that says on the top Minnesota cities. >> So, if I just look at that. So, it's got a little probe. It says step scale in addition to coal increase. Yes. So that could be some percentage and then they get cold over here. So it says yes, it just doesn't tell us how much. >> Right. So >> So that's kind of what you're basing it on. >> And and I would guess that if you look at those steps and actually I mean it's going to be different every year with your employees and which step they're going from and to consistent usually steps. I mean some years I'm sure they're over 5%. some years have probably done that. But I I think if we're going to look at this, we got to look at actual data and not anecdotal stories from our careers. Um, you know, looking at the the state, you know, there's there's state agencies that track this stuff. And so, I mean, if we're going to do it, we got to base it on the numbers and compare apples to apples, not just look at these 3% cola raises and say, "All right, 3%." >> Mr. I I find it really I find it really interesting that council member Swinsson wants to look at look at hard data now when it comes to this, but you don't want to look at hard data. Last week when we were talking about buying spending $30 to $60,000 for a bucket truck, >> I I'm willing to look at data, but we don't we don't have any data here. >> What's data? >> We don't have we don't have we don't have a solid step program yet. >> We got to create rainbows. >> Mr. Mayor, um I agree with Chief Miller also. I I worked in government for a good part of my adult life. I also worked in in utilities and I worked in private industry, I never not had a step program within any of those employers. And although I was union in a in a good portion of it, we had steps, but if I wasn't performing, I didn't get that step. It's not a guarantee, but it gives you something to work for. And then when you get to that top of your steps, then you get you got longevity for being that's why I love sitting in Minneapolis. I wasn't getting steps. I was top of my step and I got longevity, which I would have loved to have gone back to steps because that was more of an increase than longevity. >> Definitely have some different schools of thought. >> How's my rent? Um I I the one thing to keep in mind about this this data that we have the sheet listing if people got step increases or colas that it's my opinion that steps increases are basically merit increases um and that there are just like not every city's listed on here and I would say that not every city is listed on here without looking at the data. some in the past we've had cities listed like um Columbus where their numbers were um specifically very much lower than us year after year. So it's not that everybody's doing three or everybody's doing four or everybody's doing a cola. Um I the one of the comments in here was that from Andover I believe it was saying the same yes they have steps because they're a union job. We we we don't have steps but but we have we have the ability to do merit in raises and yes some people have been in public some people have been private. I don't ever remember getting large raises even though inflation was four five 6% but it was like here we fell into the bell curve and yep here's your 2% and like it or not but that's just kind of the way that it way that it is. One one thing that we have to also keep in mind if we're talking about salary adjustments and raises is isum as we just had someone resign. Um are we how far back are we going? Because there's been people um in 25 that have had at least one or two promotions for the year where they've had increases that um um that if you did like we did last year where we did merit where not everybody got a flat number across the board. was here's the here's your pool. How do how do you want to divvy it out? And that was that was the intention to be done to be done last year. And um so that we don't necessarily have to be um giving um 3% to everyone or whatever the percentage that we decide to use across the board. It can be that pool and then it can be spread um across um as spread across staff as it sees fit. And yes, we have done salary studies in the past. I can think of I believe at least twice since I've been on council that we've done salary studies to do that exact adjustment. Um the challenge with those salary studies is finding the right tool >> and they're well not necessarily that but your public super work supervisor um in Fidley or St. Cloud is doing different jobs than they they are now then. And so how do you how do you adjust for that? That also comes into play. >> Can I ask for your recommendations? I would say I'm I'm comfortable right now leaving it at the 3%. >> We definitely got disagreement on this. So, >> Mr. Mayor, >> let let me finish first and then and then I'll let you go. So, one of the things I look at, so we've got two very much for it. We've got two very much against it. What if we compromise on this and we bring this in at a 4% and try to go that way? I know that nobody agrees on this and and I get it. I'm okay with council. Go ahead. Um, I was just I was leaping through this handout and I'm looking at I mean this is old data but it's probably similar steps. It's 2023 salary ranges for St. Francis. I'm just looking at basic office support step one to two and I did the math and it's a 3 and 12% rate over 3 and a half%. 3.57%. If you add the 3% cost of living increase that person is really getting a 6.57% increase. So, if we're going to I mean, I just want to make the point again that they are getting more than a 3% raise. And so, if that's sort of what we're basing our numbers on, it's not accurate. I mean, they're far exceeding our 5% that we currently have budget. And I just I I feel very strong that 5% is a reasonable number. It's not overshooting the mark by any means. And I think it's what's fair. Our goal should be to retain our employees, retain our good employees, retain people. I'm gonna say fair enough. I'm going to go back. Can we compromise on this? We got five, we got three. Can we go to four and be done with this and put this to bed because we're not going to come into agreement. I we have very strong argument all the way around. So, can we look for a compromise, settle at four? That's my request. I'll make a motion. I would like to go 4%. Anybody second that motion? >> Second. Did somebody say second? >> I'll second. Mr. Mayor, >> yes. >> Question for you. Is your four a flat four% across the board or is it is it going to be potentially um can be be variable across debt based on whatever the different conditions are? >> So you take your your salary that you have right now, you would add 4%. >> So everybody's getting a flat 12% right now. So it would be 4% that would be the pool of money how it's divided out. I've not selected that and then typically we in this case last year we give to the city administrator and we're dividing this case we give back some would get more some potentially get less bas >> does that suffice or would you like to see it differently? Council Rainbow, >> based on council member Brian's comments, would you then amend your motion to say that it is up to our city clerk to determine how that four I'm not in favor of 4%. Um, I'm in favor of five, but it are you willing to amend your motion that then our city clerk, Miss Johnson, has the ability to determine how that is best spread amongst the employees? >> I I would add it to it. So, It would be added to I don't think I have to amend it. I would added to it to state that yes, it should be a 4% off of our current wages and increase that by 4%. How it's lined up, it would go to the city clerk in this case about I I for in regards to the the percentage I would I would prefer that we wait on this decision because I'm not I'm not in favor of four or five. um but looking later in the year to look at what the um consumer price index is over a 12-month period. Right now we only have it through July it's 2.7%. Um and I I think uh it would be consistent with what businesses working on a fiscal calendar um in regards to uh wage adjustments would do is they would wait till later in the year to make a definitive decision about that. Um but And and I think I think in this case because our our city clerk has an immediate relative reporting to her that the city council should receive performance reviews from uh for each of our employees and and the city council should return the percentage increase. I I got that's one piece of feedback. We do have somebody that is re so we have to be super careful on on that and how that takes place. What's the best process? So you're recommening performance reviews come up to us and then we review and reallocate it. >> Yes. >> Do we then now need to change our personnel policies because I'm trying to remember that that's investment personel. Um the other thing too is um I I have faith in Miss Johnson that she will be um that there won't be a bias. She's looking at performance. Um and I would just say that the St. Francis one Council member Swanson brought in. So we had a 2023 salary range. Um number six in 2023 this person makes more than our office assistant does not. >> I'm not comparing direct not in this meeting. That's not what we're here for. We're talking about the percentage. >> But well and we're talking about percentages. Yeah. At this time we are >> Mr. Mayor. >> We could potentially argue that for every position that we have in the city now. Council member Swansson, >> I I take the the uh the points about family what in the office and that's a fair point. I guess I would prefer just to give a flat 4% to everyone then rather than have it come back to council and have us decide individually on every single worker what the race is. >> Could I could I add something to that? Sure. And I prefer not to just go a general 4% and not a fake kind of that. But what if we said, "Hey, for the one employee that works for Miss Johnson that's related to her, she brought that up and told us what what her recommendation is." What if we did that? >> I would prefer that. Are you asking me? I >> I'm asking everybody. >> I would prefer that over looking at every single employee up there. I do think it's fair that we look at that one relationship. >> We we we pay Miss Johnson to do that and evaluate performance. Um we put her in that position and I I think she could do that. Would that would that be your Personally, it see if if we had a closed meeting with the city clerk when it came time to give pay increases that that she just that the clerk gives us a uh >> recommendation >> a recommendation of of salary increases for each place. So I I that's I would feel better about that, >> Mr. Mayor. >> So can that point before you go? That's not that's not a bad plan, guys. So you think about that before they're passed out. She's providing us to the council recommendations. We could at least give constructive argument. But then does that mean that she doesn't get to make the decision? We would make the decision. Is that what you're recommending? >> Well, it it could be a decision with input from council. I I think we have a responsibility to um to the taxpayers to to be mindful of this. So, but is it only because of the the relationship because they're related? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Because if we approve a percentage, how that percentage is allocated typically would be done by the city in this case. But in this case, we're asking for intervention because we've got a direct relationship. Correct. Council member. >> So, Mr. Mayor, um I don't believe that's a legitimate reason. um or legal reason to close a meeting. Um you'd have to get um direction from the league and or our attorney. There are certain things that allow you to have closed meetings and I don't think reviewing performance and providing raise is off. It's like if we're giving a performance review to somebody then yes and then that employee has the ability to h ask for that meeting to be open. >> Here's my >> but I don't think we can disclose it to look at >> let's bring this back up and talk about that particular piece. I would like to do a vote on the raise. I know that we're not completely in alignment. I know uh council member Glazer is recommending to not go forward, but we've had the discussion and we just spent 40 minutes on those cases. I I personally feel it's right time to do the vote at 4% and it's a a compromise. So, we've already got a motion. We got a second. I would like to do the do the vote on it. So, I'm going to restate the motion one more time. would be 4% currently uh that 4% of employees wages and it would be given by the city clerk and we'll come back um and talk about can we do a closed meeting on that but right now would be the motion or the vote would be for let the city divide that up so that would be vote all right so moving forward vote all those in favor say I may >> there be a simpler way of just stating that is we're simply changing the percent from 5 to four as far Yes, sir. >> That make it clear. >> I'm sorry. >> No, that's okay. And I'm just saying again, we're planning a meeting in November then. >> I think we do. And then we talk about that because there's concern. >> All right. Can we vote now? We got >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> So, we got two days, three motion's going to carry and 4%. Okay. We're going to put that to bed and RCA probably November time frame to look at how that may be processed. We don't have a city administrator or Natalie here to write that. So, can somebody take note and send that to her? Somebody do that because I don't want to forget because it's important. >> No, you said that again. >> Would somebody send uh city clerk Johnson an email stating that we need an RCA for November to come back and talk about the process? >> Sure. on how the uh how it's divided up and the reason is is because of I think that's a very fair statement. Okay. Anything else for the budget for major things? We got the increase done which was the major one road study. I did we talk about that? I think we were I don't know what we on that I think there was more opposition to doing another road study than just keep going with what we have. >> Mr. Mayor Council, can I just circle around and and talk about the light? >> Yes. >> Because we are going to bring on a post preliminary levy to you um next Tuesday and I want to make sure that we're all in agreement at um the levy amount that I am bringing and that we're good to go with that. So um so right now the levy increase is 9.96% for um $212,145 and the majority of that is the debt levy increase. The debt levy's going up 194,630. What's that comprised of? It's comprised of the new debt service that's um coming on and then plus fully um levying for the existing debt services which we have not done in the past. We reduced our levy for those other um debt services because we had fund balance available and now uh that money is has gone down and we need to transfer money into those debt service funds and plus we need to levy for it levy amount that's recommended um for our bond documents. So that's why this levy is going up $194,630. And so the other increase is the general levy. The general levy is going up $17,515. Is the council okay with the general levy going up $17,515. >> How much is here? So last year it was 173. The year before that it was zero. You can see here for yourself. >> So this is a pretty small amount compared to the past. >> Y there were other years back here in 2017 it was a small amount. In 2024 it was zero. is much smaller than >> on average it has gone up uh 77 $7,000 in the last 10 years >> asking the council um going back to right now you're recommending a 9.98 is that correct >> that is 9.96 >> yeah and how that impacts residents is about um $77 a year for a home that's valued at 451,000 >> 71% >> $77 over the previous year. So this is an annual increase. So the monthly charges is about $6.40 a month more on your city tax than it was previously. And the only way to reduce the levy is by reducing the general fund money because you really have to do the debt service unless you're going to transfer more money from the general fund to the debt service. >> I think we all said you didn't want to transfer more wanted to keep that 40%. >> So if we're in alignment on this I know we got a meeting scheduled next Tuesday again, but is that the only thing that we're going to do is review this and agree on it? on council. >> It's a regular council meeting and it's it's going to be to adopt this preliminary le and send it send it to the county and then that shows up on the truth and taxation notices that tomorrow >> it gives us one week to think about this lesson. We if we've got questions we can reach out and discuss. Well, I we we should resolve it tonight because I need to get uh something to Natalie tomorrow for um to have it posted. So, do you agree on the ready increase of 9.96%. asking the council. >> Your only other option would be to reduce um or reduce the levy in the general fund, therefore increasing your fund balances. That's the only >> cut spending >> or or cut spending. >> I mean, you I don't know where you would cut it, >> Mr. Mayor. >> I really don't. >> Council member, >> sorry. I uh Well, yeah, just respond to uh Jagger. I yeah I'm >> Mr. Miranda, >> I would agree. Also, >> your expenditures in the general fund are going up less than 1%. >> Currently, and that's what the player the 20,000 >> and that's the 30,000 for the >> that's not in there. >> That's not >> But that will just change your funds. >> That's right. >> But it would be considered budgeted as long as it was included. >> Yeah. And right now it's not right now it >> knowing that we're planning on moving back in November of this and that we can lower our expenses and reduce the amount of fund balance that's available but and we can or transfer more it's possible if we look at it to transfer money into our debt service that you can lower this money then I okay with with going with what we have. >> Mr. Mayor, I am not in favor of a 9.96% levy increase um to the city of Melan primarily because I was not in support of bonding for $500,000 fire truck that I would still argue that we didn't absolute. So So that's already passed though. So, I understand it's fast, but I'm just telling you why I don't why I I don't I have a difficult time supporting this budget. One of the reasons. >> All right. Anything else for tonight's meeting? I don't know if there's any other discussions or questions you have on it. Um, Council Brian, you summarized it up nicely. We will meet back up in the beginning and we will look and see what we can do. I think there is opportunity. It's not huge opportunities, but they certainly could add up and we could be talking about 10 $15,000. Uh the chief can spend his money that'll shift that over. Um there's things that we can we can summarize. >> Any other questions for Mr. Mayor? >> Mr. Mayor Council, we have not looked at any of the other budgets yet. Um the other budgets, the only budget that impacts the levy would be the debt service funds. Um uh or the other um budget that may impact the fund balance use would be the equipment fund. But in order to purchase the equipment that you have out there um we need to do the transfer of $40,000 into the equipment fund. So, I don't know if you want to I we did review the recycling fund, the gambling fund. All we're doing is we're taking in money from our uh the the proceeds for for gambling in town and then we're transferring it to the general fund to help support our public. So, that's what that's that's what's happening there. Um recycling, you touched on that service. I' I've kind of um explained what why it was going up so much. Um here's the the new levy that's coming on. It's 150,000 gold um for the adarum taxes for the new debt. Um in capital uh quickly park improvements. I just had the nine nine old trail improvements in 2026 and memorial park improvements in 2026. >> Was that 200? >> Yeah. Is that accurate or is that So one question is you would um council rainbow we had talked about potentially for the memorial fund we had some I think we were going to use parks >> use park this is part of that >> and we truly don't know the amount >> we don't know the amount of memorial there are we'll talk tomorrow donations >> and start specific donations I just have to find out the legalities of that the city donations um or whether it would be better if we did a nonprofit. Yeah. And I don't want to hold that out. It's just more workplace. >> Well, you have the funding available in >> in here. You have $226,000 >> and right now we're budgeting $20,000 for >> Okay. but not the veterans. That's >> is that is that something different? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, this is something I'm not aware of. >> Right. So, we have an ad hoc committee um to discuss the renovation of our Nelvin Memorial Veterans Memorial. >> Okay. >> And so, we um do not have a dollar amount yet. We won't until we get some designs. Um there were two people passed last night. coming. >> So, this could be an adjustment when we meet again in November. >> Yeah. >> And and talk about gear. So, turnout gear, we have $25,000 budgeted for 2026 and that is because we do have new volunteer firefighters that need turnout gear and so >> I think we've already budget. Yes. um building improvements. That is where we have a building study. I don't know if that's still on the table or if you want to eliminate that. >> I certainly antic $50,000 for a building study. I think that can be removed. I don't see any need for a building anything. >> And then I still have the 61,000 here for buildings and structures for this town hall. might need 5,000 bucks to fix some walls, but I don't see 1000. >> Mr. Mayor, >> we did talk about using part of that to pay Miss Nash for the services that she's providing to the city for rewriting her. >> Could they use that? >> Um, yeah, you could transfer money back from this building capital fund back into general fund there if that's what you want to do. No, we don't have to do it right now, but we have the >> but we can do that too. That would help offset the fun. >> I just want to put that reminder out that we had that discussion in regards to those. >> So that's like $15,000. >> No, I was like 17 for the first. >> Yeah, but it's a total of 30,000, >> right? So, it would be a transfer in from the building capital fund back to the general fund of $30,000 and that will help offset the fund balances. >> Okay. I'll have to put that in here. >> Y >> and so then do you want me to leave this in here as an item or you want >> I think some amount of money is needed to fix the walls but not 61,000. Okay. And I would like to see the 30 go over to cover the updates on that. So, >> okay. >> Mr. Mayor, >> council member, >> and some of that building structure also be our visual. Um, you know, better lighting. The walls are these walls are going to have to be gutted and and sheetrock. We're not going to be able to repair this. >> So, it's not it's not worth finding somebody that stole the best course. >> I think we need to get >> somebody. >> Yeah, >> I I think we can find somebody. I think we put a little work into it. I would like to get a quote for it. So, maybe leave the rest of the money in there and let's get some quotes and we'll talk about it. >> Okay. >> Somebody does it. I just don't know. >> Okay. So, if you take the 30 out of there and shift that over, it'll be awesome. >> Anything else? improvement fund. >> So currently I have 100,000 for repair and maintenance normal repair and maintenance that kind of stuff 50,000 for calcium chloride and then the 584,175 for the road improvement project. >> This was the recommendation from Mr. Nelson >> on because there was a 5year plan and progressively that it goes to 584 next year. It's 584 in in 2026 and it includes the county project. The county project is 24,175 starting in 26. So, and then for equipment just briefly, we have um the tool cat Bobcat at 78,000. We have a box for the truck. at 30,000 and we have network computers at 10,000. >> Mr. Mayor, Counc in the couple recent weeks, there needs to be probably needs to be discussion with um to find out if this that is still the plan for capital knowing that that looking at a box bucket truck was possibility because that's not necessarily on there. That that might change. Not that it affects anything per se, but M >> um >> I think the bucket truck should go on the CI what you call equipment equipment piece and that drops over. We've already approved it. >> No, but I'm just saying is that's is this still the appropriate capital request for 26? We don't know that. >> I feel it is because that's what we had planned for we discussed because we approved the equipment fund um said two months ago. Now, it didn't have a bucket truck on it, but it would seem to be um more of a fly by the seed pan say here's an opportunity. So, I think it's planned for 2027 at this point. That that's my recommendation. So, I thought it would hurt at least hurt to ask if that has changed. >> What part is planned for? nothing right now without saying if they want to do a boom truck that we would incorporate it into our 2026 um into our equipment fund and then we would look at when do we want to fund that. So I think it goes into the 2027 >> but also in regards to the tool cap that that has been budgeted for it doesn't have to be purchased it can be pushed out based on the bonding requirements correct >> yes it can be you have within three years after you three years to buy >> their options looking into they can find a good one they have to budget it option cut that cost >> so right now I have 595,000 that's being issued for capital and that includes the rescue one the the tool kit and the the dump dump Anything else that you want to share? >> Any other questions for Mr. >> So next next week I will bring up the resolution for the approving the preliminary levy at the uh post and um some summaries and stuff. Yes, please. >> Is there a second? >> Brian is done adjouring the meeting. He's tired of it. that thanks for sending that as you know I appreciate it. Did you