Oh, where's the camera? She's like, [laughter] can you see me now? [snorts] >> I can hear you. >> I'm so glad I'm not there. That's what Joe was saying. >> Darcy's trying to get a song to you. >> Well, she's [laughter] gonna sing you a song. She's got the song. We're just >> effort here. >> We're gonna have St. Francis's Darcy song of the week. That's going to be on the website. >> Get Michelle on that. She'll have she'll have you on the highlights for sure. >> Hometown highlights. Darcy song of the week. You didn't have to move the door. I'm just propping it or what? >> Yeah, I propped it. >> Okay. >> Have any tricks planned? filming >> uh deer hunting here starting Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday at the the University of Minnesota. There's Cedar Creek Preserve there. We set up stands yesterday for about four and a half hours and got drawn in the lottery to go do that. So, that'll be fun. >> Oh, right there in Oak. >> Yeah. East Bethl or Bethl. >> Oh, okay. >> It's uh east of Cooper's Corner. >> Yeah. All that property or what? >> Yeah. Yeah, did some volunteer work during the summer and then they put your name in a hat and get a chance to go out there. So, my brother-in-law got a really nice one. Well, he lives across the street more towards counter 56, but there's a gentleman in our zone last year that got a really nice 10point the first night. But, they have an over abundance of animals and they want you it's a dough first and then you can then you can shoot a buck if you see one. But they just got done with the youth hunt and they had um one out of five kids got a animal last week. >> And then during the phase, we're in phase two. Phase one was seven animals, eight animals out of 23 hunters. So the weather was really pretty nice, too. So they had a bad time. But things are changing and we got a little cool front coming. We'll see. We saw a lot of signs. My brother-in-law is pretty pretty good woodsman. So, we were looking found a lot of different things, tracks and trails and stuff. So, we'll be hopeful. I'm pretty proficient with my bow. Now, last year I use a crossbow. They're pretty heavy and bulky. Get up in the stand. They're they're really accurate. But >> my neighbor does hunting. Yeah. >> But he'll he'll he's out in the yard practicing and we're sitting there and he'll hear >> Yeah. It's a cool sound. Yeah. So, we got some really nice. Our zone we got was nice. We got inside and lots of hard woods and some swamp around it and it'll be fun. It'll be good nature. >> Need to start moving during the daylight. I got lots of camera on during the evening. But >> yeah, got to catch them either sneaking out to party or coming home from partying. >> What times can you hunt? half hour before and half hour after sunset. So tomorrow I think Thursday is 7:05. So at 6:35 you could shoot. Really tough to see at 6:35 and then half hour after sundown which is like 6 >> half hour before and half hour after sunset. >> So tomorrow I think there's your 75. So 65 635. >> I'm live on YouTube. Can you hear us? >> I can hear you, but uh I can't see you. >> Yeah, I'm not sure. >> That's okay. >> And Kate's quiet. I don't know if her mic's not on. >> Is that better? >> Or Jenny. I couldn't hear who was talking. >> Ready? >> Jenny's not even here. >> Okay. must. >> Yeah. I don't know why you can't see us. >> Um, is your video Sometimes the video is turned off cuz if I look at YouTube, it just shows me right now. [clears throat] >> I don't want it on my computer. [laughter] [gasps] >> Hey, there's something there. >> You just keep pushing buttons. We're good. Oh, you >> call to order the meeting on Monday, October 27th, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. It's a work session. Please rise for the pledge. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call, please. Kate. >> Yep. >> Council member Robinson >> here. >> Here. >> Muower >> here. >> Pis here. Mayor Bogle >> here. >> Agenda items. Fire district considerations. >> Actually, mayor, I will start this. So, mayor, council, before you tonight is a breakdown of all of the considerations we need to look at as we're moving over to the district. Um, I don't know what would be easiest. I can go through these kind of line by line at a high level or if you just want to answer or ask questions. Um, but I could just walk through these pretty quick and then you could stop me if you have a question as well. So, um, we're really looking at ending up with three agreements. We will have a user agreement of the building. We are looking at like an employee and separation agreement because we have a lot of one-time transfers, employment pieces that we need to tie up. and then also the fiscal agent agreement which will be the ongoing uh financial support that we will provide as a contract to the district. So within those three reports uh shops is working on a lot of the legal language but these are some of the finite questions that we need to come up with is what do we want to do and how do we want to do it. So starting at the top we have just a basic starting with the fiscal agent pieces is the district to pay 24,000 per year and that dis the district would be paying that for the administrative and financial services of the city of St. Francis. >> Sorry to interrupt my computer's [clears throat] not >> pulling up. Can we pull it up on screen or no? >> Or do we lose children? >> Yeah. >> Um >> grab me a copy of Mary. Well, >> I'll just go grab a I'll just go grab a hard copy. >> Yeah, we can. >> Well, they've they've lost me in the past, like when Beth shares and then people on YouTube, I think, can see it, too. Um I don't know if that's an issue or not, but I'll still be here. I think you just wouldn't be able to see me, >> right? I got so many things open on here. It's not pulling off. Also >> screen your computer. >> I never have any problems with my And I'm not good at computers. It's not because I'm >> Well, I'm definitely not. But it'll get me all the way to this >> cuz that >> I'm going to try it again here. >> Okay. Hey, where were we? Oh, you're doing something. >> Let's see if I could share my >> Oh, there we go. >> Just [laughter] have it just have people watch. They had to have me walk over the presence. >> Sorry about that. Thank you, everyone. >> Okay, now I got very weird. >> Can Oh, you can see it. >> I can see it on on screen over by Dave. It's >> not on your screens. Yeah, that is It might get there. Okay. If you have a copy. >> Yep. >> So, so the fiscal agent fee um proposed is 2400 per year. That would cover all of the >> 24,000. >> 24,000 >> per year. Correct. Um then the fiscal agents fee to begin in January of 27. And and a couple of these items I pushed to January 27 because we don't have them specifically in the fire budget right now. everything that we're talking about is either being collected um paid for. So nothing is new, but it's just how we have it separated in the budget now versus how we'll separate it once they're a district. Um Darcy does all of the finance for fire, but we don't have it in pulled out separately as a line item in fire's budget. So this is just also kind of moving around some of those pieces. So these aren't new fees, these aren't new expenses. um just to make that clear, but it's it's not in the fire department budget. So to we could shift it around for 26, but for the just the beginning of this conversation, I just said starting in 27 because it'll then be all lined up. Um health insurance benefits. >> Do we want Yeah, I'm sorry, Kate. I mean, do we want to weigh in on each one of these as we go kind of a thing or how do you want to >> That's up to you. If you want to go one by one, I'm happy to do so. If you want me to just go through them and then give me feed, whatever works for you guys, whatever's cleaner. >> I mean, I I I >> I'd rather just Yeah. Right. Correct. I agree with Sarah. If I mean, you got a question, ask it, but >> Yep. as we go. >> As we go. So, yeah, I would I would I'd prefer that we [clears throat] address it as you go through them. >> Okay. >> So, if anybody's got anything So, anything on one or two there, fiscal agent fees? Anybody? >> Can I chime in quick? >> Yep. Go ahead, Joe. >> Okay. So, um I talked with Kate earlier, too, um just to kind of clear some of this stuff up because it's it's as clear as mud. Um but it makes sense. But I think too, one of the things we want to keep in mind is keeping everything separated from the city and doing doing what we're doing to lay the groundwork here is important because if we do add other cities later on, the negotiating power goes from say two and two to now we have two St. Francis to I'm going to say Oak Grove just for argument's sake to now then you know in a perfect world we have a huge district and everybody's working together um at some point but to to separate these things from the city it's still the same funds but they're under different umbrella so to speak um so I just wanted to throw that out there just for people to keep in mind I think while we're talking about these things that's I I have a question, Mayor. >> Go ahead, >> Kate. As we see this and is Bethl seeing the same format as we are, will they be talking and discussing the same things? Only their numbers might be a little bit different as far as >> Mayor C. I'll refer over to to Dave for the Bethl piece. >> Portions will be gerine to the city of Bethl. We talked about our fireboard meeting that some of these things are going to have to be replicated on the Bethl side. when we talk specifically about the building and the fleet and they have their own obligations or responsibilities under powers to replicate on their side. Some are not because we're the fiscal agent. Bethle doesn't have to discuss what that fiscal agent piece looks like. That's a function of what St. Francis >> is going to provide to the district. That has already been agreed upon. So >> probably the first twothirds is going to be St. Francis specific. Um, but there will be some overlay that Bethl will have to handle their assets independently just like we're doing. >> Okay. And I'm going to jump ahead just real fast. Uh, quick 25. It says Bethl contract. City city will transfer funds received from Bethl contract to the district in in 26. So, Bethl won't will or won't be contributing something until the beginning of the calendar year. >> So, because we're currently operating under that two-year contract, >> we wanted to honor the contractual 26 and that's why we're delaying the fiscal agent contribution from the district back to the city as well. >> Being that we're days away from November, we're very deep into the the budget discussion. We wanted to be able to use fixed numbers and not have this change in September or October. We've already done a lot of work towards the budget and again honoring that contractual piece with the city of Bethl. >> I forgot about the second portion of the second year. So that that answers quite a few bit of my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. >> Sir Amy, anything else? >> Not on these. >> Only one I've got real quick is just the 24,000. I know it's just a spitw number. I mean, what was it based on? Eight hours a week or I I I mean, what what what's it based off of? >> Yeah. So, mayor council actually we looked at um we looked at what the costs are today. We did a lot of development of how many hours are in payroll, how many hours are in accounts payable. So, it isn't a complete number that's pulled from the air. Um, we did do some calculations to see roughly where we're at on a normal kind of nonfun, you know, non on a basic year like at the yeartoyear nothing exciting is happening, right? Like a kind of a flatline year. Um, that that 24,000 would be a fair price. So, and it's again the payroll, the audits, um, accounts payable some. Okay. So, number three has to do with the health insurance benefits. So, we have two full-time employees in the fire department that are currently on city benefits. Um, because they're going under their own uh tax ID and everything and they're no longer employees of the city that these will go to what's called a control group under our insurance. So, as long as their personnel policy mirrors ours as to when benefits kick in, then they can be a group under us and they can continue their insurance. However, the district and the will be responsible for district employees. So, um but they don't have to go out and find a new policy and and try to really start something new. They can be a control group under us. >> Um >> so, this continues even when we hit 2027, you're saying >> correct. >> Yep. Uh legal representation. So, what's proposed is they'll continue uh working with BGS. The city every year puts down a retainer. And when we're we were working with in Noa Champlain, what we learned is is the same agreement applies there. The BGS is also their attorney down there. Um so what they do is the city has the retainer, but then the district is build for any services used. So we would continue our normal business, but they don't have to drop a retainer, but if they use if they use any legal services, they just pay out of their budget. So that's what the legal representation would be. and the retainer fee will stay steady even if it grows into a bigger fire district or is the retainer fee based on the amount of volume and amount of people >> may say that would be subject to change based on the growth of the district. >> Okay. >> Um if we start seeing three and four and five cities that's certainly going to change probably the expectations from PGS on the size of the retainer. So I think that would be subject to change based on potential grow. >> I mean just to reiterate if any guys jump in anytime so don't >> thanks. >> Okay. Uh then number five the transfer of the fiscal responsibilities. So following um basically items will be transferred from the city to the district through the the fiscal agent. So with that like our financial software will have to be separate. So Darcy's working with BSNA to have their own account. The district is working on their own website. Um insurance the um enterprise our auto leases and our fleet management. So credit card cellular plans. So all of that will sep se separate essentially from the city is what that statement is about. So um then number six is the fiscal agent term. So what we're looking at is starting that term at five years with an autorenew every five years. So that way if another city does come in with greater capacity or we grow so big that it's just out greater than what our city can can handle with our size that um every 5 years there's an opportunity if there's another way to do this. So but committing that for five years kind of commits you to those audits, right? There's a lot that would need to transfer all of those accounts, all of that payroll. So, five years, you know, to really get him set up and and transfer it once we'd had that notice. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Um, quick question about the software stuff. Um, does that mean there's another subscription, another fee added to that because it's a separate entity, so to speak, or we're not sure? >> No, it's it's within the the ability of the software to set up a separate. Okay, that's all. >> Kate, can I back up for a second to number five? Um, where it says um um software website auto and employment insurance, does that mean if um the district um someone driving the truck has an accident, does that mean the city is not liable for that at all? >> Correct. They will be their own legal business entity. So, the city will no longer be liable for work comp, auto accidents, any any of the above. They'll have their own insurance. And if the fire truck is in our building and it starts on fire and half our burn building burns down, whose insurance pays for that? >> Yep. So, we're working through that with our use agreement. >> Yep. is much like a tenant landlord situation. So there's triggers where our building will have to kick in but what's worked with the auto insurance. So it would it's could be both but a lot of that is being worked out through the lease agreement or use agreement but I will make sure that that is addressed uh as a question with the final agreement. Write that down quick. Okay. All right. Next. >> We're not we're not locking into anything tonight. It's just >> correct. >> A rough read to it. So you we can give direction as to where to go. >> Correct. These these questions fill the gaps in the use agreement, the fiscal agent agreement as to what we want to charge, how we want to charge it, the terms. So correct, you'll have a whole you'll have the three actual documents coming forward um in the near future here. Um, I just want to say one more thing. The five years um that I ought to renew in 5 years, I feel like maybe if it was a contract that we were already doing and everything was going well, I feel like five years is a long time for the first the first part of this. I don't know, that's just me. Um I I five years makes sense after after that but to me five years is a pretty long time um to start. >> Sure. And mayor and council we have a 5-year divorce clause. So it's a minimum of five years before anybody can move out even at this point. So it follows the JPA that was put in place with the divorce clause as far as a starting year. Oh, it can be if you would prefer it to be something else. Just let me know what you want. >> Any ideas? Timeline. >> Well, three years makes more sense to me in the for the first one, but um we're just supposed to be saying what we're thinking normally. Absolutely. So, that's what I'm thinking. >> Is that consens You want me to change that? Is that consensus? I guess >> I'm just I'm just processing the >> what what what do you think Dave what what was a fiveyear the thinking of the fiveyear >> sure and we had some disc discussion around the term and I think we wanted to leave some agility in the agreement that if a larger entity came on board with higher capacity that we wanted to be open to that potential and not lock in for a longer term. But we also felt that it was gerine to match the fiscal agreement with the G. So if divorce clause so things would line up structurally if there was a catastrophic failure the divorce clause was initiated the fiscal agreement should terminate on pace with that discussion. Right? So that's where we were going with our thought process of the other potential as Kate mentioned is if if That won't be long after I'm gone. This turns into five or six cities. The fiscal agent may not be a municipality. The district may choose to hire a fiscal person within the district as it. So, we do want to make sure that we don't lock ourselves into Councilman Perfonus' point of of exorbitant terms, but we should try to match some of our terms and our languages together for consistency sake, but still maintain that flexibility or agility as this role as so that was the thought process. >> I have a question to that. >> Go ahead, Joe. Um, so it makes sense, I think, to divorce if the divorce clause is initiated. However, it's a it's a fiveyear it's a fiveyear term. So, let's say we go two years. Bethl says, "I want out." They have to stay for another five years. Then we're off terms at that point with our fiscal agent. Is that correct? >> It's a great question. So to your example, we sign the the Bethl initiates the divorce clause in year two. We have three years remaining on our fiscal agent agreement, but we're going to potentially dissolve in two years. That's where we would come back to the fireboard and the representative councils and say, "Okay, we know where we're going to end up. Let's not do the auto renewal for the five-year process. Let's do the hard renewal for the two-year process, which then should align with the divorce clause. Does that make sense? >> Kind of. Um, and then I guess my other question that was kind of leading into this was, um, and I'm going to throw, um, I'm going to throw old Gro's name out there just because they're probably our closest neighbor. Um, and, uh, just so the public knows, there's no rumors or anything of of this happening. I'm using them as an example of if hypothetical only. Um, say they want to join in year three and they say, "Yeah, we want to join up or now then or anybody." Um, and they have a 5-year divorce clause. I mean, that kind of it sounds like I mean it would be the same situation where if there was any kind of change um in any of the agreement, would it change for everybody? um we we end up having to kind of renew different contracts or is then Bethl on the initial contract. Um obviously it's expandable but I don't know if you get what I'm trying to say Dave. Um >> I do I guess what I'm envisioning in my mind is let's use your example of Oakro coming on board. The joint powers agreement would have to be amended in totality to account for that to include Oakro. Right. So, I think that's where those terms kind of reset with that new entity coming on that this is a new joint powers agreement and that five-year divorce clause starts at the inception of that third city coming on board. Does that make sense? So, you're not having potentially dealing with a couple different divorces at the same time, >> right? So, the the divorce clause as well then it's not a it's not a rolling five. If it's just the initial contract's five years basically. If they decide in year four they want to be done at the end of five that's completely fine. It's not five years from the time they decide to quit. >> It is five years from the initiate initiation of divorce. >> Okay. Okay. That makes sense. Okay. That's all I have. any other strong feelings on three or five or >> I I would defer to to Dave's. I mean, he seems to think that this is the the that makes the most sense and is the easiest to to keep track of. And in that case, I don't think it's I mean, I don't think five years is out of the question. So f five years and you say it has to be a divorce. Let's just say it's two years down the road. >> Sure. >> And everything's going good. So nobody wants nobody wants out or whatever else, but the fire board determines they want to change it to a three or five year. >> They could absolutely >> Okay. >> Absolutely. Obviously, the city would have to agree that we want a different term because of these objectives, but that's been our discussion through this entire process is we're not going to get everything right on the first try. We're taking best practice, but best practice doesn't apply to every single situation that we're going to encumber during this process. I'm comfortable at the five years. I do very much understand and appreciate council member Bis' concerns. Whatever this council agrees will make work as part of the fire district, fire board. So I'm not married to one term or another. Again, I think one of the other pieces that we examined during our discussion on what that term look like is looking at some of our neighboring communities and we we are in a stronger position to be that fiscal agent relative to our immediate neighbors. Right. Now, if it expands beyond that or if we have somebody who's not an immediate neighbor who wanted to join it, we still want to have a term that gives us the opportunity to go, okay, well, maybe it makes sense to go with not that they're talking to either, Joe, who right so um we felt it was a fair number, but again, I think I'll speak on behalf of myself and fire district. I think we'd be agreeable to three or five or whatever you make. It's it's if I can ask I mean what three you're preferring three just >> I just think it's a long time right from the get-go. [snorts] I just I think it's a long time >> because I I I don't know. I know in some of our discussions, you know, we wanted to make everything longer so there's some stability to get started. I I mean as as some of it I I and I I think the fact that that the flyer board a year for well not a year but in 2008 could say we we prefer to change it to this I think it gives us some flexibility. So I don't know I I I I I know that's what we talked about even the divorce clause. We want it to be long enough to discourage people from just they get upset about one incident and then they want it right away out. I don't I think in a situation like this longer is better and it's it is flexible. So, I don't know. I guess I'm more inclined to say the five year. >> I'm good with the five also. And think of actual divorce clause did get triggered. They want to take their toys and go home. They don't have any toys. It's the district's toys now. So, it would take them x amount of years to get their equipment together, get the group. I mean, just the like you say, the ramifications of even thinking about, you know, maybe a separation, but not a full divorce because there's what do you do? You know, how do you separate all the toys up again? and and would the district want to know these are now our stuff. You you got to start fresh from scratch. I think a city would have to really think long and hard and be in a critical critical situation to say I'm out. So they're going to leave their people without a service and till they spend a million six on a new truck and the grass reunion and stuff. So it took us two and a half years to get to where we are now. Can you imagine what a divorce would take to break it all down and put all the stuff back on the shelf and and somebody leaves ticked off and empty-handed? So, or with at least a check in their hand, but what good's that going to do you if your neighbor's house is on fire. So, I'm I'm good with a five. I understand Amy's situation or Amy's question as well, but this is a big moving machine and it's it takes a while to get up and moving to speed. It'll take a long time to get to it slow back down in my opinion. >> Sarah or Joel? >> Yeah, I I'm on board with the five here. >> Yeah, I think for now the five is good um just to start out. Um, and I I kind of I agree with Kevin. I think with the with Bethl especially, I think I mean they're they're almost a part of our city as it is. Um, you know, geographically. So, I think that's that's [snorts] a kind of a more of a locked in situation, too. Um, so I don't see an issue with the five years initially and then if we need to revisit that, it's this is kind of a a learning curve situation, too. We're we're all kind of learning as we go. So, I think uh if we need to adjust things later on, that is something we can revisit. And I don't know how that works. I mean, if we have to honor the current contract, that's fine. But in the next five years, we're going to learn a lot, I think, and and probably have to figure out what we need to do. So, >> take your direction. So, >> thank you. And then, can I [clears throat] back up to number four as well? Um so the city will continue with to maintain its retainer with BGS but the district will cover any expenses that they have. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Um so what if um we need BGS for um counseling between the two entities? Who pays for that and is that a conflict of interest? >> So BGS has several attorneys. We definitely can tap otherwise you one of the the district may have to find another attorney. We also have um a another attorney on basically on our list for assignments that handles all of our administrative and code enforcement that is not BGS. Um so we have access to another firm but they would pay all of their own costs and we would pay our own costs. >> Kind of a good question. I mean, do we need to write something in there where it won't be a BGS versus BGS representing? I I don't >> So, I asked that specific question. Excuse me. Um, the open chap fire chief where chapl is represented. They ever ran into a scenario where that became a mutual litigation situation. his recollection, it's never happened. And when there has been issues where maybe the city takes one stance on an issue and district takes another, what Kate just described where there's other there's other attorneys that are a part of either city that can kind of step in and navigate that strong process. He said by and large any issue they've had has been very popular. So >> we need we're working in concert and partnership, not at odds with each other. So I guess I don't foresee that being a potential issue, but I think we do have some level of protection whether it be through a different law firm already working with the city that would be able to help the establish. >> Do we need to write anything into it though stating that it would be >> I think that would be a question for BGS specifically on what that language could or should look like. >> Right. >> Yep. And I will um as Dave goes through our legal documents, make sure he addresses. >> Yep. Okay. Anything else on that? >> No, not on that one. >> So 7, eight, and nine are all related. So So we've kind of moved out of the fiscal agent agreement and moving over to a shared space agreement. >> Oh, can I back up? I'm sorry. No, here. Um that's why we're here. >> So the transfer of fiscal responsibilities. So, but if St. Francis is still the fiscal agent, so the moving of some of these things, they're actually getting transferred into the district's name. >> Correct. >> Like actual money moving over. >> Correct. So, but [clears throat] we are still the fiscal agent, meaning they're they're not a check signer. I'm using it very simply. Um, is is that correct? >> Who's not a check signer? Well, if if we're the fiscal agent, the city's the fiscal agent, and we're transferring money to a separate entity, who who who's signing the checks? >> It would be the district's responsibility to manage all of those aspects as check signers. It would be in the city would facilitate that process by processing payroll. We we would have to do our own audit as the fire district as well. audit wouldn't be done in concert with they're just going to be the vehicle in which we utilize from a software standpoint, from payroll processing standpoint, and probably 15 other things that Darcy can describe to you better. But the district itself is going to have standalone financial policies, personnel policies. That's all going to be by the fire board. So that's where kind of that check and balance comes into play. So when you think of fiscal agent, think of more of an assistant than that's actually writing the checks themselves. >> That's what I thought that money was going to you. >> Y >> quick question. >> Go ahead, Joel. >> So, uh, well, maybe not a question, but and correct me if I'm wrong, Dave, too. So, basically the way it works, um, just for everybody's understanding as well as my own is you get the money, the money is used at your discretion, the discretion that the council has. Say for instance, um Dave says, "I want to hire five full-time people." We say at our budget and we're not giving you that money to do that. We're giving you x amount of money to operate the fire department. That's where the council's um deal kind of stops is we give you the money to use for your services and then you use that at your discretion with your policy. And then the board is obviously the part of the oversight on that. >> Yep. So currently I guess as we transition to the fire district, think of the fire board as the city council for the fire district. Okay. From a city to city perspective, the budget will be called out on the funding formula that's in the JPA. The budget would be worked through through the fireboard and presented to the cities based on their amount of cost sharing and the cities decide that that is what they're going to pay or that that's what they're agreeable to pay or that's what they're not. If they're not, it goes back to the fire board and the district. They rehash their budget, comes back to the city for approval for the funding piece. But from a day-to-day operation and governance piece, think of the fire board as the city council for the fire district. Well, that's the first time I've heard it explained that way. I understood that the two people that were chosen on our council, Mark and Kevin, and the two people that were chosen on Bethl's council, I don't know their names. And that fifth person, um, they were the ones who were making the decisions. I didn't know there was a board for the district. And that's what I'm trying to articulate is at today we operate as a city council is providing direction to the fire department or the city >> January 1 it's the fire board that will be acting as essentially what you are doing today as a city that's where that governance comes from. So you still have council representation two members full cities but they're operating as a fireboard not as a city council but they're making much of the same decisions that traditionally the city council has to make. Well, how do we explain to the taxpayers that we take a whole bunch of money and a whole bunch of equipment and this building that we just built and give it to basically a separate entity of people that were not elected? Um maybe don't live here. Um >> they were elected though. That's the that's the representation from the council. Well, but he's he's saying that there's another council of people on the fire >> that the fire board is the two people from the council and then as of right now Charlie and then the two people from Bethl. So there are there's elected people on from both cities and then the the fifth person. >> Okay. So Okay. But so what that means is there's fewer St. Franc's city council members that were elected that are having a say in what happens on the fire board once it's started. >> You are correct. There's fewation from both cities or the fireboard or continuity of >> right and when you take St. Francis and Bethl and look at them in terms of population and fight number of fire calls and what they're contributing to this. We're contributing a lot more. Sure. >> Right. It seems not balanced to me that um it just doesn't seem balanced to me. And I think I said in our last work session that I personally did not agree with Charlie being that fifth person. He was the one who did the study. So of course and the first thing on the study was we need more full-time people. I'm being really simple. But the first thing on the study was we need more full-time people. Well, what do you think's going to happen come January 1st? There's going to be hey we need more full-time people. And Joe just said that the fire district can make can decide whatever they want to do >> with if you they decide they want five full-time people and they have the money for it, they can do it. Um >> they won't have the money for it. I can guarantee you that. >> Right. Right. >> I I'm I I I don't believe that Charlie should be that fifth person because of course he's going to agree with everything that's written in his study. I mean, why why wouldn't he? He he wrote the study. He he made all of those recommendations. So he human nature, I'm not speaking anything bad about him, but of course he's going that that fifth vote is going to be for everything that's in the study. >> And that's that's that I think though is well you're well you can't say what Charlie's going to do or not going to do. That's hypothetical. But I I do think though that the that's where you making the budget when it comes budget time for our city. That's where you pay attention to what do we spend last year, what are we spending this year, where are we at with this, where are our costs going because if you don't give the district the money to hire two people, three people, one person, they can't afford to hire one person or whatever full-time. So that's where the city council still has as a whole a council has that authority [snorts] to manage the budget that's given to the district. So that's where the council is involved there. The board can say we think we need this. They bring it to the council and we say, "Yeah, we see what you're saying, but we're not going to give you that much money." And that limits what the district is able to do. So that's your oversight over the board even because it comes back to the council first. If that does that sound right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I'll also say >> you can feel however you want about Charlie. This is in the defense of Charlie. Charlie is one vote. >> I would be willing to bet my paycheck that if Charlie recommended to the fire board tomorrow that we're going to hire one more full-time staff member. You have two people here that are going to say no. And one vote will never overcome two. and it certainly won't overcome full. I'm not going to call into question Charlie's character. He's nothing but upfront honesty. >> And I don't mean to do that either. >> So I I hear your concerns. I understand your concerns. I would be willing to believe that the board feels very differently about that. Um but there is we have been forthright and upfront with everything that we're doing from not only our committee to our board that we had a couple weeks ago to our upcoming board meeting and what we did for the council. I get the fear. I have no designs to make this into a full-time department in a year, two, five or 10. I am trying to make sure that we provide the service that the community expects and that's it. And now I work with the fire board to ensure that capacity is met in whatever way the board and the cities decide collectively together. So there there's that's all we're trying to this this is set up and designed to operate as similarly to or exactly to every other fire district that exists in the state with a great deal of success. I guess I don't know what else to add to it. I I I appreciate and I I I'm very pleased that you're advocating. I hear you. I just I can't I can't tell you that that is the direction of that at all because Mark and I have had conversations. Kevin and I have had conversations. I I don't know what to tell you. We're not asking for five full-time people. What we've asked for is nothing. What is in the study as far as staffing? I have no intention of asking for more full-time staffing this year or next year. And I believe the exact statement that Mayor Hogle offered is let's make sure controlling our run volume because more full-time staffing is not near your future and I don't want to mis coach you and I think that's that's close as I can get without watching video. So that provides me with some insight on how I need to manage the district or the department and that's one of your votes right there. So, um, I don't foresee it being an issue, but I do hear it and I I appreciate you your >> I think it's a I think it's a reasonable point to make. Um, given that he did make the study, I can see where you're going with that. But I think too if one thing that makes me feel better about the whole situation is being in some of those talks um after Steve got sick and seeing the conservative nature of Bethl. Um they're they're pretty strict on their budget too. Um so I would think that they wouldn't want to pay more than they have to either. Um, and I think they're that's that's something that's going to keep it I I don't think I don't see them trying to expand the budget a lot, I guess, if if any, uh, to be honest with you. So, I will throw those two cents in there. >> Anything else? >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, so items 7, eight, and nine are all related. These are moving to the space agreement. Um, number seven, first of all, is the district shall pay 36 to $4,000 per month. And what that does is cover the janitorial, which is our building facility tax time, um, garbage, cameras, elevator costs, fiber, property insurance, general administration. So, this is not, um, a random number. We did take all of these costs and break them down. We do have that room in there. Uh, one thing it does not include is any of the debt of this building. Um, and again, this isn't something that we've singled out in the fire department budget because we are paying it as a greater organization. So then moving it is to a line item in their budget in 2027. Uh, one thing that is not built in is like an inflation cost. Um, because of course we all know garbage and fiber go up every year. So I don't know if you want to set a flat amount within that range, if you want to set a flat amount in that range and then add a very low inflationary cost um, or any changes to the debt. But 78 and N are all related to that fee. Uh, and I'm happy to answer any questions with that. So just I I think it's just a typo, but it's 3600 to 4,000. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um my only question on it really evolves around that takes care of this firehouse here. What about Bethl's on? >> So Beth, excuse me, Bethl is intending or planning on donating the entire facility to the district itself. So we would be responsible for utilities and maintenance as the district. There would not be a lease back in income. So because we're a shared facility here, it makes it real difficult to make that treat it like the rest of our assets through this process where Beth has already committed to we got we'll just we'll give you the building. We'll take ourselves out of it and then we would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and utilities directly through the district with all the lease agreement >> and that's included in the 3600 to 4,000 or that would be >> that would be additional utility costs for the district. Okay, >> this topic is in particular of this building this shared space. >> Well, I think there should be something in there. I mean, I don't know that we want to keep it that same rate across the board as everything's going to go up. So, I think there should be something in there about a percentage change. I'm not sure what that should be, but I think we all know that every year everything keeps going up. So, to just keep it there, I don't want to see us at year three falling behind. >> I would agree. >> I agree with that. >> Is there a percentage you could recommend to us, Finance Director Darcy? I would maybe say I mean one to two%. >> Okay. >> Would be sufficient. >> Yeah. >> Well, I guess I when you say 1 to 2% I [clears throat] mean I mean next I we're going to be talking about is the budget we're talking about we got to increase at least 9% or whatever whatever it is. I mean how how why are we saying only one% there? Well, you're not a a big driver, I think, of like our budget would be more like personnel and things like that, not just the building costs. So, you're this is one little thing out of our whole budget, you know, and we're not talking about um you know, street projects or you know, buying big equipment and stuff. It's just the few things that go into the the building. >> So, I mean, if you wanted to do a higher amount, you could. >> No, I'm not necessarily advocate for that. I'm just asking the question. I mean, >> yeah. I just don't think this the costs associated with this one little item would be much more than you could go as high as a 3% you know but >> well if you did 2% each year you're building up so you're actually that would be >> yeah so if you did 2% on you know say you started at 4,000 you'd be at your math really You know what? $4,080 and then you take take 2% of $4,080 it would grow that way comfortable with 2%. >> But I do think there should be some >> right. Yeah, >> some number. I agree. So it's 2% or whatever. I'm >> Kevin. Oh. >> All right. Go ahead, Kevin. >> No, that's all right. Go ahead. >> I was going to say I I agree with that. Um my question is I guess as you compound interest things do tend to rise quickly. Um and I'm wondering if there's not something that we should I don't know if you can write it in the agreement or whatnot. um to re-evaluate it. And I don't know how often you do that. If it's a year or two years or when you do that to get a more I mean at some point it's going to be you know you keep compounding 2% on 2% on 2% it's it's going to get astronomical at some point. Um and I can't imagine that the fees for those services are going to go up extremely high but they are going to rise. Um that's just my thought. I think we all got to keep in mind too, this isn't a we're not creating a new company so we can succeed and prosper and grow, right? >> We're creating a company so we can serve in an efficient manner. Basically, the way I'm thinking about it is Bethl had was spending a dollar. We've been spending $3 on fire. Now, Bethl's bringing their dollar and giving it to us plus another 50 cents on top of their dollar to pay for the stuff that they didn't have. they had none of this stuff. So really, it's um they're not going to get any more than they were getting. Each each budget won't be getting any more than they were getting unless the the their governing bodies say they can have more or they can show a need for it. But again, Bethl came over the GPA for a two-year, you know, was beneficial for them, not for us. We're we're we're being benevolent, but we have all the the right tools and stuff to do the job. So, but there's no um there's no gratuitity here. It's it's because it's a need that we're helping serve. Uh so, again, they're bringing their buck plus another 50 cents or 75 cents. It was based on the formula overall was per capita. And then what they've >> capacity >> and capacity population so they their fluctuation changes the formula changes all I mean again we're not doing this to be more successful and more prosperous. We're doing this to serve better and it's not for free. I mean, they knew that in the beginning. If you were were there during c some of the earlier talks, they were ringing their hands like what are we going to do? Not like, oh, poor us, but like we've come to they waited too long to reach out for help is what they really did cuz they were down to three firefighters and a chief that was ready to retire. So, they had nothing to really come with. So, this is how this all got, you know, came to fruition. But um I I'm all about, you know, proefficiency and being able to serve, but we we need a a fair dollar for the fair amount of work we're putting into it. >> Yeah. I don't I don't see it as us trying to make a a dime at all. >> Not at all. No, that's not Yeah. >> We can also re-evaluate if we see that that 2% >> I agree is is too much and we're we just don't need that than when we >> and they might bring it to our attention as well. They'll say we have some different thoughts on this and >> Right. Yeah. I think that's a good >> in order. Yeah. So, the other thing for me is in order to reflect the true cost of a fire district, you have to include increases like that. Otherwise, it just gets Yeah. It's small, but it just gets buried and then then the next thing you know, you're behind and it's >> So, I don't I think we're settled on 2%. I don't know. All right. So again, I we didn't put anything for the debt and then we have the schedule to pay in 2027. So all three of those are related to the space fee. Um so utilities that will be the district will pay their proportion uh based on the their space in the building. for water and sewer. We the city currently does not charge itself for water and sewer. So there's no change there. And then bulk water. Currently the city does not charge itself for bulk water, but they will continue to report to public um works as they do now. So >> I have a question on that then. The city does not charge itself, but what about the should the district be charged for something? >> I guess that would be a question. I >> we're drawing we have a line of delineation here. We now that we have a district now being born and the city didn't charge for it, but should the district be paying their dues when especially when water is a big talk about around town here. If they're loading up their tanker trucks to go do service or I mean I think they should be charged for that stuff. We've we've charging for other things all the way down to legal fees and you know paper clips. We should be charging for water and sewer. The citizens are paying for it. And I I can see a lot of torches and pitchforks coming our way if we don't do something. I mean being realistic anyway >> is that the direction of the whole group is there consensus? >> I don't know. I would agree with what Kevin's saying and for the other reason is it's just simply I mean the taxpayer is paying for it no matter what. So it's not it's but again it just >> well it gives us a closer number for the district alone for fire operations. I mean, rather than >> Go ahead, Joe. >> My contrary argument, and it's I'm I I don't disagree with what Kevin says, and I wrestle with whether or not I should just say I agree 100% with Kevin or I shouldn't. My question is that at some point, so if you're charging the district for water, um, and maybe this is something again you revisit later if we get bigger and have more cities. Um but if you're charging the district for water at some point if they do become a taxing district then you're charging the district which in turn is going to pay the charge of taxpayers. So either way like you say they end up paying for it. The only question I would have is I guess I mean since you have Bethl you can say well they're getting our water for free and that's what some people are going to say anyway because that's just what some people are going to say. um you know and and I've I've seen people argue about um about public works because they actually sell water I think to people in those tanker trucks but then they say we need to conserve water and then people are mad because we're selling that water to those some of those trucks. It it's just it's sometimes some people are just never going to be happy either way. that if there if the taxing district becomes a if the district becomes a taxing its own taxing district and then you're selling them the water at that point does it make sense or does it not because either way the people are going to get charged for it and is that going to actually cost the people more or is it just extra administrative work that doesn't need to be done that's kind of where I'm like where do we go with this and does it matter that's just kind of my two cents where I'm like I don't know what the answer is to that to be honest with you >> to me it's the utility a legal fee whether it's electricity or natural gas if they're going to be paying rent and stuff on their square footage and their you know sto for their building portion of the building I don't think the consumption of water would be any different it might be minute but still it's a cost of doing business as a district >> well it's probably not too minute I mean fight to put out fires you need water you know it's so um well and I I just I I kind of lean towards what Kevin's saying it's a cost of doing business. But if that means then that the fire district is going to say, "Okay, well, we spent $20,000 on water this year." Now, we need $20,000 more dollars from St. Francis and Bethl. Like, what's the point? You know, like like kind of like you're saying, Joe. Um, so I guess I I'm not sure how much water a fire station uses. Um, probably a lot, but Bethl has city water, right? They do have a hydrant in town. >> A hydrant. And is that ours or there's their they have their own water sewer system. >> Oh wow. >> Water system and some version of a of a water system. I think it's all produced well, but >> Oh, does it work well? >> Um, we'll find out. >> I I I just assume they were on ours. >> The only thing that I would that I would I don't want to throw a fly particular with bulk water. So we currently don't charge our mutual aid partners for use of water in emergency. So if that's the direction that that we're given, we're going to have to figure out what that looks like and restructure all of our agreements that if they're using St. Francis water, there's I need a report on usage and amounts and bill back to our mutual aid partners for that use. So, I don't want to over complicate it, but if we're talking about old water piece is the one piece where I get a little bit concerned on how do we do this accurately at 3 in the morning when we have five or six departments that are coming for one. So, >> well, and the last thing you want is firefighters [clears throat] trying to decide which hydrant should I use based on who's paying for it or what's cheaper or this. I I I totally get that, but I guess do we have an idea of how much water is used by the fire department in a year. >> It it varies pretty dramatically and it also varies based on neighbor usage. Right. So if there was a fire just on this side of of Tiger is obviously public works. >> Yep. >> Right. So then it's how do we account for the amount of water that went out of the city versus the amount of water that went into the city. We do report the best that we can. The advantage that we have on all of our pumping apparatus is we have a gallons used >> gauge. So it's really easy when we're the ones that are flowing the primary water. Some of these are guesstimates when it's going down to B Grove. For example, the large house on Viking and Seth that burn earlier this year, right? That was there's a tremendous amount of water usage. I want to say I reported back to Paul that we may have used 30,000 gallons of water from St. Francis and it came from other cities as well. Um, but some of those are are best guesses as well, but he needs those for DNR reporting purposes. >> I was just thinking of a percentage added, not we didn't have to get down to, you know, rocket science. >> Yep. Yep. >> Make sure that was in the ether as we have discussion. So, >> I I think there there will be some residents because I get a phone call every time there's a police officer's vehicle in another city uh nearby. uh to let me know that we're paying for somebody else's police even though they also help us. Um you know, and I I always tell that person, you know, you can you can call Todd and figure out, you know, how much mutual aid we've gotten as to what we've given out and figure out the percentage of who's paying for what. But, um the information is there, I guess, somewhere if you want it. But I think too with the water increase currently, you're going to get people saying that yes, they should pay for water because I think a lot of people aren't going to understand necessarily that that's not necessarily a gain, but having somebody else pay for the water sounds better. Um, and I my my only concern is it's I get what Dave's saying too and and to accurately track and then who's what and again emergency situation, which hydrate do we use? Not that it matters because I think the firefighters are going to instinctually do what they need to do to just to to probably, you know, get the fire out sooner than later. Um, but I think too it's it's are we adding administrative work that's not necessary to be charging then for water or is that where we at with that? Because to me, that's just an extra cost and extra labor that's not going to necessarily benefit anybody. And like Amy's saying too, well, we spent, you know, $20,000 extra on water. Now we got to charge the people $20,000 extra. There's no you're just adding administrative things and more more things to keep track of. Not that it's a bad thing, but it does kind of I don't I don't know if the it sounds better to the taxpayer, I think, to say yes, we're going to charge you for water, but realistically, I don't think it's beneficial financially or administratively to do that. So, I would say no on that if that makes sense to people. >> I'm just wondering I'm just wondering out loud here. You know, what if we just did I just throwing numbers. I have no idea what the number is. If we just said 50,000 gallons a year kind of number, I I what I what I hate to see is just we create something where we can't reflect the true cost and having zero water charge is kind of it's kind of hidden and [clears throat] I agree with you. I don't want I don't want to see sit sit here every truck comes in we got a label how I I that gets real petty and it gets real time consuming. So I don't want to see that. But I I don't know, Dave, is there some way to just would there be a any way of going up fair just annual amount that would >> Yeah, I think the simplest way because you're going to have potentially wide variation from year to year, month to month, and even department to department on water usage. That if if it's the city council's direct to some of those costs back to do a flat annual fee for the fire because the other thing that I would hate to see happen is for a neighboring department to defer to a further fire away because they're not sure how much they're going to use or how much it's so I also don't want to create some apprehension but we need to do everything we can to eliminate that. So, if this is something that the council feels strongly about, my recommendation would just have it be a flat user fee on an annual basis with the understanding that some years you're ahead and some years you're behind. Um, but at least if that's something that the constituency feels passionate about, you can go back and say, "Well, we're getting something that we weren't getting before." Right. Yep. >> So there's a concession there, but that would be from from a management perspective to try and track everybody's gallons used over the course of a year >> and throw a you know pivot chart over the last 10 years of history or usage. >> I think a flat rate a flat annual fee if you will call it an access fee or something. >> I like that idea. I don't know. >> Me too. Yeah. The last thing you want is to create confusion during a scene. So, Darcy, how much does 50,000 gallons of water cost? [laughter] >> Um, I'm looking for my >> You knew we were going to ask, weren't you? You were already looking, Jessica. I know where this is going. >> If you want to go, I Let me look and I will get that answer. Great. >> Fair enough. >> So, to throw throw this out there, too. And uh just so everybody's clear, I'm not questioning the integrity of the fire board or district either. Um but if we're concerned about I mean if you're giving if you're giving money for water use too because it's either way it's coming out of the budget, but you're giving the district more money then too to just say here's money for water. Obviously it's a flat fee and if they stay under that then they still have that money too in their budget but it's to me it's just more of an administrative headache. I don't think you need I don't think you need to to even do that honestly. But that's I don't think I don't think when I say I'm not questioning the integrity, I don't think Dave's going to say, "Hey, I got $50,000 in water money I didn't use. I'm going to go do this." You know? Um I >> couldn't you say the same for $50,000 or $5,000 in accounting fee money that I didn't use or they didn't use, you know, the fiscal agent >> didn't put in a full thousand hours or on something. So they they've again it's I agree with Dave. You know, there's kind of a high and low on it. I was just looking for some accountability. We're charging the district rent. We're charging them legal fees. We're charging them admin fees. It's fee fee fee fee. >> Again, we're just trying to make them stand alone. And so they it's probably a better for them to know this is what our true cost is by throwing something in there. >> Trying to stir up the hornets here, but >> No, I didn't I didn't think you were either. I didn't take it that way either, Kevin. Um I'm just trying to look at it from all angles here, too. And I think like is this something that and I don't know if this is a Dave or a Kate question, but >> if we expand in the future cuz the whole the whole purpose of this is to hopefully make it expandable. That was the whole kind of idea. And I think in time that's going to happen when we don't know, you know, if it if it even does. But if it's expandable, is that something that again we want to kind of get ahead of it so that if there is an issue I mean and we have less votes say we have now we have two votes out of um six and then the you know the the non-partial person um that we want to get ahead of it so people aren't going to say well you're not charging for water now. Is this something we want to put in there just so we have something in there for expandable reasons to where we don't end up getting hosed in the future, so to speak? >> That's why I think it's good. That's why I think it's good to have this place marker. >> Placeer placeholder. >> Darcy has something to tell us. >> Yep. >> Go. >> Yes, Darcy has her hand up. Joe, >> 50,000 gallons for the year would be $449. >> Oh. deal. [laughter] >> I think I think it's worth having that placeholder there. I just really do. >> You'll be getting a hose for $400, Joe. >> Oh, good one. Boy, >> that's taking that times the bulk water price. >> Kate, I just just to re reiterate that would be $449 a year,000 gallons. >> Okay. Well, they didn't they didn't think they used 33,000 on that one house. So 50,000 is probably pretty low on what they used. >> Yeah. I I'd say if you combine training and and actual incident response is probably closer to give or take 100,000 gallons of water fall. Uh we do have so with Iani we do have an a debt into our mutual agreement with Iani that for emergency response we don't charge them for one but if they're going to refill after a training they have their own key fob or however Paul has it set up and we do charge them for any water from the water tower that isn't directly attributed to emergency response. So I'd have to go back separate. So I I can't speak to intelligently as well, but again to Joel's point and others at I just struggle with how do we administrate that? How do we account for that? Administrate appropriately, not create a deterrence when people are at most need. >> I'm not talking about mutual aid and water. I was just talking about district water. A one time, you know, a play like the mayor said, a placeholder for the district only. If we're going to go to now then or a standing or something, it's business as usual. Always before it's >> I just want to make sure that >> you bet. No, I wasn't thinking of, you know, let me swipe your card before I turn on this hydrant. That's all I'm talking >> if you took off a responses. >> No, I wasn't. That never crossed my mind. >> Usage. Okay. >> But again, subject to change on >> Yeah. >> what the world throws at us. I don't know. Do we have consensus pretty much on 50,000galon placeholder for now? I mean, it can almost change and blah blah blah. I don't >> I think >> I think 50 is way low if you're going to do it. >> Well, Dave's thinking, you know, well, yeah, it depends upon if you're talking mutual aid water. If he's talking mutual aid water, he said closer to 100. Otherwise, on >> I was not talking mutual aid order. I'm just talking to the district. >> I think we just me personally, I think we should stick with 50,000. It's a token but it's at least we can say to the taxpayers that are worried about the water bill that we are getting paid for it but we don't have an accurate way of calculating it. So this is what we came up with. I don't know to me that that makes sense and there would be no confusion then on the where should I get water during a scene. I don't want that at all. So um >> well there's yeah there should never be any confusion on that I don't think and I don't think that's like you say mutual aid I don't think should be like a flat fee if you're going to do it is not bad but then as a district grows you readjust that or whatever if you can I that's kind of where I think I don't know >> because none of the cities are charging each other for mutual aid water calls in any way >> or or anything >> none of that >> if I could make a recommendation I would call a water access fee of $500 annually. That's a little bit north of 50,000 gallons. We know what it's for. It's going to eb and flow a little bit top or bottom of that number. I think that that's a number that's easy enough for the district to >> I agree. I think that's great. >> I think we got consensus on that. >> Y >> and so my only a question on utilities. district to pay. It's a percentage portion that's just a we don't have separate meters, do we? I mean, it's just >> No. And we already account for a percentage in our budgets. So, that's where that number directly is what we've already articulated within those line items that are per budget instead of going directly to connections and our sh. >> All right. uh 13 and 14 are tied together. So 13 is just and 14 are about building maintenance. So again with the proportion of the building that's did going to be basically district use versus shared use. So we share the fitness center. We share um >> mother's room >> mother's room. There's there's some shared space. So what it's looking like is 100% of the maintenance of the for the district in the district space. Then we will share with them between the city and the district 50/50 any building maintenance in shared space. And then the city would cover 100% of our space. Um that's identified as city space. And then overall any district improvements if they want to go up there and start moving walls or doing any major repairs or alterations that they do have to have the city's approval. Um being that we're essentially uh building owner and aka landlord. So um so any questions on those? I have a question on the building maintenance and the maintenance budget. Um, we're putting so much away every year for building maintenance and even though it's the same it's the same source of of funds. Um, how does that >> you're talking about the CIP kind of >> No, I'm talking about the building maintenance fund that we have. Um cuz we I mean the whole purpose of the building maintenance fund and I got this whole speech written out for the next meeting for my council member report. Uh whether or not you'll like it or not, we'll find out. But um just kind of talking about the building maintenance fund that was created. I mean we build these multi-million dollar buildings and we had no way to maintain them. We didn't plan for that in the past many many years ago. Um, but there's now a building maintenance fund to be more responsible owners, I would say, um, and stewards of the taxpayers money to to maintain these buildings. If the district, they're they're responsible for 100%, but it's still I mean, it's I don't know how to say it. It's like it's [snorts] you're kind of playing, you know, it's it's it's it's a shell game to a point. Um, right now we're separating it and at some point if it does become its own taxing authority, then they would have to be responsible for 100% of that and and account for that in the taxes. But as of right now, how does that affect our building maintenance fund or we're just we're just moving things around, I guess. And and I get that, but it's just I don't know. That confuses me. >> I mean, we kind of talked about it earlier, Kate, but >> that Kate or Darcy question. I don't know. Yeah, mayor and council. So, I think this one is is tough. Um, I think day-to-day maintenance, you know, if there comes a time where they want to redo their floor or they want to upgrade their cabinets, right, that is the kind of maintenance that would be theirs. But when you start looking at the roof, the windows, you know, does the city want 100% of that as shared space or do you want to split that 50/50 with the district? So I think that's where even in the use agreement we're going to have to get a bit little bit more granular is right maintenance to me would be you know the the bathroom door is broken so the district has to fix their bathroom door we would do the same on first floor with city hall but if the mother's room or the fitness room is broken right that's everybody uses that in the building so maybe that's a 50/50 but when it comes to these larger pieces Um there really is a question because it is blurry. You know, is this is the district going to be able to afford 50% of the roof of this building? Probably not very easily. Um >> so I think there's there's two different pieces to this too, Joel. So we have a line item budget for building maintenance within our budget. What Kate is describing, we have, you know, a chair that breaks or a sink that fails. We take that out of our operational line item budget for building maintenance. There's also the building fund which covers some of those larger expenses like roof replacement. Is that correct, Marcy? >> Oh, sorry. >> That correct? So, we have a building maintenance or building repair line item in our budget. >> In our operational budget, every year we carve out money for building maintenance and repair. >> Yep. >> Okay. That's for when a doororknob breaks or we have to replace a sink or carpet needs to get shampooed. But there's also the building fund. Does the fire department now contribute to part of that larger building fund or is that just a part of the city >> operation as a whole? >> That's a part of the city tax levy is designated to that. So if you really wanted to take part of that, it's just like we're splitting up capital. So, we're splitting up capital equipment right now. And I'm I'm coming down with a number of how much capital equipment is actually going to be now his and how to split that up. to do that on the building maintenance. That's going to be really t that's gonna be tough because that money that goes in there is not only for this building. It's also for police public works and and other buildings, you know, that aren't >> right >> just enterprise related. So, >> well, and the major building expenses, well, it's easy now because there's probably none right now, but the major building expenses, we should take care of those as the landlord, >> right, Mayor C. You can set it up either way. We could we could ask the district to contribute or those major expenses. We should also be if if I was renting an apartment, I would be getting a little bit per month to put towards my greater fund and not be responsible for 50% of the roof once the roof needs to be done. So, it's all in how you manage that. Um we we can share it at a flat rate. we can assume it's part of our monthly um cost or we can just use that as part of our our capital that we set aside knowing it's the taxpayers are paying for it either way. Well, I I think I might have got ahead of myself there, too, because I again I I fail to recognize that if we do grow, I mean, as of right now with these two cities, we're responsible for our own stuff right now anyway. And I'm probably getting ahead of myself because if we do grow, you do again want that placeholder with the district so that you're not covering all those costs as St. Francis, I guess, so to speak. So, having it as a placeholder is not a bad idea either. Mayor Council >> and Joe, I I do want to caution though that say we take on city A and they have three $13 million fire departments, right? Their budget is going to reflect that. We're also going to be paying that. So, >> right. >> So, there's also just that general, you know, what what are we paying for now, but what what are we paying for later? I think if you get another city that has one or three or five buildings, you're going to have to come back to the table on some of these questions anyway. >> Okay. >> But yeah, I just do we want do we want the district to to be responsible for any big repairs or do we assume that under the city and just that as part of the use fee? And um >> I mean I think it's the same old thing, the placeholder of some sort and I I'm more comfortable with I mean the city is the owner already and the district so to speak is renting. I'd be more comfortable just building something in because I' I'd rather let's just say the roof needs to replace 10 years from now. [clears throat] I don't think it should be that council has to go out and they're looking for bids and we're going out looking for I don't want to I think that gets really messy. I think it's better that city just stays the the owner and and releasing it out to the district. >> Okay. >> So, I don't know if that >> I don't want to speak for everybody. That's how I feel. I kind of you were a property owner or in the real estate per se, didn't you have like a triple net where there Yeah, like you said, you had a building, but and like Kate said, you once all when all the rent receipts come in, you still got to have a little extra for your profit and then some to put away to refurbish what's already being depleted or depreciated. So, I agree with you about the placeholder part. Again, what's the number? You know, >> I'm not I'm not as concerned, believe it or not, I'm not as concerned about number, but I am concerned about being a placeholder there. and acknowledging that >> because a year from now we're gonna look we're going to have meetings the district have a meeting or meet district and the council have meetings and say how do we do what let's uh let's look at our report card here what worked what didn't work where was the money at we here's where we were long here's where we were short but I agree with the placeholder and maybe it needs no dollar amount this for the first year this is our like I say we still got our training wheels on seeing how it goes Can I >> Sure. >> If you're a landlord, you you know you that's part of your rent. So maybe that's part of what you put into the lease. You know, >> I agree >> because to to split it out and say, well, we're putting $50,000 away, but a thousand of that a year is coming from the district. Well, then what we end up having to do is we have to transfer $1,000 to the district. They hold it and then we ask for it back at some point. I don't think that works. I think, you know, I think it works better as saying we'll add, you know, maybe $25 a month to that lease payment. Does that make sense? >> Does. I like that idea. Yes. >> You know, and not have that designation of Yes. And we would just continue to do building maintenance the way we would the building fund the way we are doing. >> Correct. And I I I think we should put some dollar amount. I don't care if it's 25 or $50 just some some amount so that it's a knowledge placeholder not sitting with a zero so that we're aware that 10 20 years from now >> that may have to may have to change in in future lease agreements. But you're saying it should be part of the lease amount, that 3600 to 4,000, not not like a separate thing. >> If you're a renter, you're not going to say, "Okay, here's my lease payment and here is another $50 for >> mainted >> for you to save up for later." Yeah, >> I agree. >> We have agreement on that. >> Okay. All right. So 16 kind of starts to jump off with the employment and one-time separation movements. So this is uh first one is regarding the employees. So you're aware all of our current employees will need to follow the formal process do a resignation with the city of St. Francis and then they will be rehired uh with the district. So you will see in one of our upcoming meetings here the list of of all the names, but as as employment law goes, it does have to be formal and we do have to officially terminate them from the city and rehire them um as a district. Uh one of the things after sitting down a few times that we've talked about is a startup transfer. So Dave can walk over to the bank and he can open account, but they're going to need some money to make it an actual bank account. So, uh, what we looked at, um, with, you know, basically pieces of the finance that will be important until that first transfer in January is about $10,000. Um, would be a good amount to kind of forward this to open that bank account and allow him to have um, the ability to set everything up. So, I'll start stop there. Any questions? >> And that is going to be taken off of our first payment to them in January. So, we're just giving that to them to start up their account. >> And when the city of St. Francis makes its first payment to the fire district, that 10,000's deducted. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh so back in 200 I think it was 23 22 23 jars 23 the city received public service funds from the state. It was a one-time payment. U Chief Schwagger and Schmidt and I sat down and we balanced that out. The portion of it was taken out for our wellness programs and then the two chiefs split the balance of 150 a piece. Um right now they are sitting at about 79,000. So we would transfer the balance of the public service funds which would be subject to change if they spend any between now and the end of the year. >> Uh gambling funds. So these are guided by correct me if I'm wrong Darcy state statute. Um we cannot transfer those funds to the district. Um they are for equipment. So those will basically stay with the city. PAR. The city has no accounts that will be transferred. So, right now, all of the funds go directly to PAR. Dave is working diligently with PAR trying to get all of his accounts set up. And basically, when the employees transfer, those amounts will transfer from and instead of getting paid out of St. Francis's paychecks, they'll now be to paid out of the district paychecks. So, there's nothing that we need to directly do as a city for PAR. What what happens with the extra money that's at parah it it's because how how is that getting transferred to the district account? I don't I don't understand that. >> I I guess I'm confus extra money at parah. >> Well, so just everything is getting transferred from PAR. >> Yes. >> To district [clears throat] parah >> as we understand. Um, I've spoken with a lot of state and federal entities over the last couple weeks and PAR has been the hardest to get a hold of because they their phone number goes to a voicemail box and you get to wait for them to call you back. So, >> um, which I found interesting. But anyway, um, as we understand, once they have accounted for the joint powers agreement and the bylaws, which the fire board approved, then we can work on the process of changing ownership of the St. Francis volunteer retirement fund to the Rum River Fire District volunteer fund. Everybody will still have an account of their years of service because the SVF fund is completely and totally transportable. >> We do have a question about the deferred members if we continue to hang on to the deferred members accounts or if we pay out the deferred members just to make it a clean separation. We believe we can hang on to the deferred members just under the different name because we would still be the ones responsible for processing that. But as we understand once we have all of our documentation, it's simply changing the ownership of the account from St. Francis to Rum River and accounting for everybody's years of service as we move forward. Did I answer your question? >> I think so. >> And then when we fill out our FA1 form for state aid, we'll again have to present our bylaws and our joint powers agreement to the state. So Bethl's 2% money and St. Francis's 2% money goes into the district volunteer pension account. >> Okay. So, what happens with does the city still donate $500 per firefighter per year towards what was that? >> There's still an elective contribution. Yes. >> But mayor mayor council that will come from the district. It will not come from the city. The city no longer has the department. >> Okay. And we fully intend on complete continuing to budget for that elective contribution every year. >> Okay. And then can I back up to number 16, employment separation? >> Yes. >> Um so the current employees um have to resign and this the they will be rehired from the district just like automatically. >> Yep. As accounted for in the joint powers agreement. >> Okay. So with that being said, the five of us, we're no longer going to be getting information when you hire someone, when you terminate someone, when someone is, you know, like correct. >> We're we're no longer a part of that. So we don't So I mean, are are you going to continue all of those things? Like you have to live in the six mile radius, you have to um >> 10 radius. We can't do it. 10 minutes we can't do distance anymore. >> Oh, okay. That's a Yeah. Um, you know, and the you have to make your call volumes and you have to do all of that. You have you have to live here. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, so um, so I'm wondering about uh, Captain Stell. >> Yep. >> In like April, you came to us and said, "Hey, um, our fire inspector is going to be moving with his family in June." And you came with a bunch of options. And one of the options you suggested was that he stay on t Mondays and Tuesdays, I think you said, and sleep here in the station and he could still probably make his numbers. And we we said we don't we don't want that choice. But um I've noticed that Evan's car is here on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday nights a lot. So I was wondering um why we never saw his resignation. because he's still the legal owner of a property in St. Francis. They did just accept an offer on their house and he is resigning this year. >> Okay. >> But he still has an address in the city where he sleeps. We don't tell people they can't stay here. And I understand the logistics of why because his house was um they call it modeled or >> staged. staged >> staged [clears throat] for for the realtor that he didn't want to be in and out and have things moving around. So, he still has a legal address within the city. I can't I can't fire him because he hasn't broken a policy. So, he's making his numbers. I can't hold him accountable for not not making his numbers. So, I I don't have any authority under our current policy to address it other than I told them when you have when you are closed on your property and you're no longer a property owner within the city, I either need a rental agreement, a separation, or a leave. >> So, when he when his house sells, he's he's resigning. >> He'll either resign or take a personal leave to the end of the year, which again, if he says he's going to look for an apartment, which I don't think he would, right? But under policy, he would have the ability to take a personal leave. He's not gonna he's not going to acquire any hours. He's not going to acquire any pension. He's not So, I don't know why he would, but >> but then when the district starts in 2026, right, we're talking >> he's not he's not applying to be rehired. >> He he won't. Okay. >> Okay. >> And then um I guess that's all I have for now. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh number 21 is the CIP capital improvement funds. So right now the fire department has roughly 435,000. Again this is if they spend anything between now and the end of the year. Um that number would change but that is what we would be looking at for a transfer um if we did it right now. That is all of the funds set aside for trucks, major equipment and and that. So, um, ESST, which is also in our personnel policy, all of our sick time. So, the city would look to transfer 50% of our full-time employee balances for the last pay period of the year. Uh, 50% is what would be paid out if they were to leave. So, that is the actual funds. However, since they're not leaving um transferring it over to the district and then starting that balance there ESST for part-time employees, the city does not pay out or transfer any funds for part-time employees for ESST. And then to kind of tie into that, 24 talks about vacation with the full two full-time employees. So transferring 100% of their employee balances for the last pay period of the year over to the district is because if they were to leave the city we would be paying those out. Um and again instead of paying them out we would be transferring them over. So any question on those three items? >> I got a question then considering two full-time employees in will they be able to carry over and still be uh vested for what they've been acrewing so far as far as their vacation and whatnot? Yes. So, and if I'm a speaker, so whatever my vacation balance is at the end of the year, Captain Kaiser, if we were to resign, we would be owed that balance, right, >> as settlement for the termination, >> but after many years of service, you've acquired so many hours per blah blah blah. >> So, in our policy manual that the fire board approved, we're keeping the same vacation acrruel that we have been at. >> Okay. Unless there's a year of service change >> where you would go to the next cruel level, which does not apply to me nor Captain Geysers. Uh, yeah, I think both of us would stay at the same rate. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. Nothing. >> Sound like you got to reset. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's all I had. Thank you. >> All right. Can I back up just for one second? I just have one more question. You said that >> you can't tell Captain Stell not to stay here. I mean, I feel like I feel like the the the places for people to sleep there are for when um there's um >> storms, reasons that you want to staff the station. That's what they're meant for. I mean, I I guess I it it seems strange to me that we would let an employee sleep here for personal reasons versus reasons that you requested. And I I just that just seems kind of off to me. Like what if everybody wants to do it? Like >> they could. I don't have a policy in place that says they and it's not just firefighters. We've had police officers that have been in short turnarounds and have stayed at the fire station before, right? So we could certainly look at putting a policy together. We just don't have one now. So if I'm telling him that any employee for that matter that you can't be here, I have no policy to back it up. >> Okay. >> So that >> I'm just thinking that maybe we should um because like I said, what if everybody wants to do it? Well, we can't just how >> I think we would certainly address it if it was everybody, >> right? >> Um but for somebody who is who has been a dedicated employee um that has his house staged for sale, we know he's not going to be continuing with the organization. He's not the only person that's spent the night here since this building has been in place. Certainly not the last person that did it at the old building either. And and certainly not only employees from the fire department. So, um if that's something that that >> the district would have to talk about that, wouldn't they? >> The number one direct me to craft a policy for the remainder of this year or we can have the fire district draft a policy and implement that in our policy. >> I don't know. just it just seems too vague that there's there's nothing and and it >> we've had firefighters that have gone through relationship changes and needed a temporary place to stay. I would certainly rather have them be here. First of all, they're here and they're not being paid and they're 20t away from emergency equipment if they're call, right? So, I would call that an unexpensed benefit back to the city. Um, but certainly we want people to be here, right? That as I as I said before, the challenge isn't getting them out the door once they're here. It's getting them here and then getting them out the door, right? So, I want to see people hanging out here as much as possible. Do I want 27 firefighters sleeping here without a permanent residence? No. Right. I also understand selling a previous property. If you have your house staged and ready to go, last thing you want to do is worry about cleaning it every time another showing pops up. Right. So, I don't know that I've I would consider what he's been doing an abuse. Again, I don't have a policy that precludes it. So, I don't know what I would be enforcing. >> We can certainly address it as a new policy though. >> Absolutely, we can. >> Well, I can see what Amy's saying as far as if you had six guys, it's selling their house and blah blah blah blah blah blah. So maybe it's just time for we're trying we're opening a new chapter and this will be chapter one. >> I'm more than happy to have that conversation. >> I just I I don't have anything in place to enforce it today. >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh item number 26. So this has to do with the vehicles that are under lease. So the district will assume the lease payments that we are using for our fleet manager. And then 27 um donating the vehicles and I guess even 28 is related to vehicles as well. So we do have one tanker two was purchased with federal block grant money which is an agreement between the city and the county. So I'm currently working with the county to understand um federal funds never expire on equipment. So at what point do are we allowed to donate it? do we have to sell it first? So, we're working through some logistics. That's why that is the one vehicle that is pulled out of just the generic leasing and donations. Um, but that is basically our we'll have a full inventory with and a resolution would be required for our auditors um with the with the agreement. But right now, that's what we're looking at um for vehicles. So then number 29 is other fire equipment. So one of the suggestions from our auditors was again donate donate from the city what the city will not be replacing. So the day room furniture, right? The tables and chairs if something breaks or in 10 years they want a new set because they don't like the color of the cushions or something. Um that that is on them. that is not that is not a function of the city and that is not on our audit our assets our supply lists at all. So um that other fire equipment and then all of the small equipment for the fire department that isn't vehicles is takes a lot to run that one and then 30 you know donating the furniture furnishings. So that was part of that. So that is kind of the daytoday or one-time things that we need to transfer for the uh really equipment and staffing and then just in the overall the payment dates to the district. So Darcy and I talked quite a bit about when the funds come in and when taxes come in and how things are moved around and feel that January 15th and July 15th would be the two points in which we would make a transfer to the district. And then we really talked about some of the fees as well. um and what are those other revenues? So, one thing the city needs to determine it with the burn permits is, you know, we're about to to put forward the the fee schedule for next year. So, you know, is the city setting the rates and keeping the keeping those revenues? Is the district setting the rates and keeping the revenues and and how you really want to see that, you know, currently that is a fee that is in our fee schedule and once the fees come in, Darcy, where do they go? It's just general fund. >> Yeah. So, just in our general fund, we want to allow the district to keep as they're minor fees, everything sometimes helps. So, do we want the district to just control and and receive back all of their revenues from burn permits? Um, so that is the last item on here. And then just uh I know a note at the bottom that council, please be aware that the accounts payable will have to do kind of a year-end reconciliation. And we're planning that first meeting in February because we'll have a lot of year end with payroll. Payroll doesn't end, you know, exact and expenses and bills don't end exact. So, um, at that first meeting in February will be a one-time kind of true up and reconciliation of all of that year end. And then it'll be a one time because then we'll be on the year to year. It'll just be the district. You won't have this overlap where things are kind of messy. So um but any questions on 31 32? >> So Bethl I mean most likely would follow the same payment dates the district kind of thing. >> Excuse me. >> That's the intent. Yes. >> Okay. >> And when it comes I don't really know enough about the burn permits. I mean I get them but I mean how often how often is fire staff filling them out versus Lisa or Danielle filling them out or >> fire staff exclusively? >> Exclusively. Got it. Okay. And is that does Bethl have a process over there separate? >> I don't believe they do. Um at least we've never been asked to process a burn permit in the city of Bethl and they probably have fairly limited areas where they could do a permitted burn. Um the other fees that we are able to collect and it's driven through the county. So, any licensed home daycare is required to have a fire inspection and that go that comes with a $50 fee that currently goes much like the burn permits back to the general fund. So, those would be the two things that you would have to make a determination on on where those funds would go. >> But you're you're you're on the fire district. The fire district's exclusively handling. Correct. >> Correct. >> I I' I'd stay with the player district. I would agree. >> That's maybe a couple hundred bucks a year. >> And you can't get um burn permit at the hardware store anymore. >> Tim hasn't done burn permits for five, six years. >> I'm hoping that's another discussion, but I'm hoping >> Yeah. So there right now there's no trail back to the fire department with the burn permits >> as far as we do the the record retention and we do the processing of the burn permits but the $10 fee goes back into the general fund. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me. Um, but yeah, I mean, one way or another, it's it either benefits the general levy and the taxpayers get it back one way or another, whether it goes to the fire budget or not. So, I would say for now, I would probably give it to the district as well. >> All right. >> Oh, on this topic, >> yeah, I have a few questions. Um so how >> so for the employees that are getting transferred over? >> Yes. >> What what will be their their human resources department if there's if there's a problem? I mean they're they're not going to be coming to the city to complain about something or need something or any of that. there you what what is what's the district's human resources department going to be um how are they going to handle things like that I mean what we're like off the hook at this point right >> mayor council you will not be handling any fire district employees >> they have a personnel policy and a grievance process but the ultimate authority depending on the infraction level or rank would either be the fire chief and or the fireboard What if they want to step outside that and make a complaint or concern >> and they don't feel comfortable going to the chief or >> Yep. So there is a process for chain of command and grievance processes. So there if there was let's say currently today if an employee fails to meet percentages. >> Oh I was thinking of harassment or some other nature. That's yeah, there's a there that's actually called out in our personnel policy where, for example, if it's the fire chief that's the offender, they go directly to the fire board. We still have to offer due process with terminations and things of that nature. But as of today, if we have to suspend an employee, that would be a city administrator, fire chief conversation. Does it meet the criteria of the policy? Yes, it does. They're suspended. That doesn't come to council for approve. Never happens. That won't change with the fire district other than the fire chief will say, "Yep, they failed to meet percentages, training, whatever. They're suspended." Now, they can grieve that suspension, which would ultimately, if they took the grievance process all the way through, would go to the firework for reconciliation. We would still obviously rely on our attorney, which we do with complex HR issues as a city. So, that would be our backup with some of the more complicated employee law related pieces. So, is your employee handbook already written? >> Written and approved. >> Did Did we approve it? >> The fire board. >> Oh, okay. So, I haven't seen >> Yeah. You don't have a say as a council in the policies of the district. The fire board does. They are the governing authority. And it's it was simply our existing personnel policy for the city, our existing fire department policies for the fire department. We took out the stuff that doesn't apply to the fire department, whether it was a public works specific policy, a police department specific policy, city administrator specific policy, and we merged those two documents together. No standards or expectations have changed for any employees. It is exactly as it is today. With the exception of I no longer report to a city administrator, I report to a fire board. So after this is all done, Kate actually will have no role in the fire department besides helping us with budgets. >> We will try we will work with them as a contract service. >> So um I guess that was all my questions on this, but if if this shared is sharing services and is is where we're going with this for this like why wouldn't we do this with all of our departments then our our building inspectors and you know what if you know I realized we started this because Bethl came to us for help this is fine but if sharing services and expenses and everything for the fire department like have you know we've talked about you know building inspectors and different things So, no one's I'm not asking for an answer. >> So, these departments >> you you haven't had the >> you haven't had the joy of working with other councils and trying to get approval on things. >> Um that can be very tedious, very mind-numbing, very frustrating um and very expensive for us. >> Yeah. So there's there's a lot of it is if you have your own city and you can control your own budget like right now um I mean Bethl has an even say in what goes on at the fire board as we do which I think is the right thing to do even though they are smaller and they do you know they pay their portion um as of right now but working with I mean when we have joint roads with other councils um trying to get certain things done sometimes can be very frustrating. Right now we share some services with Old Grove with uh the water um which does definitely benefit us. Um, but I think until that need arises from other councils, they want to control their own destiny, so to speak. And sometimes even if it is something that we share, um, that those negotiations can be very hard to have. And that's why it's not as universal as it it would be nice. We've had conversations with police in Oak Grove, I think, at some point in time or somebody reached out to me and wanted to get a quote. I don't remember if it was Oak Grove or where it was. Um, but you know, then Todd does the numbers and comes back and says, "This is what it would cost us to get that up and running." And the other council or the other person who is interested in it says, "Yeah, it doesn't make sense for us. You know, we already contract with the county, so to speak, or whatever." Um but five people that can agree amongst each other in one city going with five people who don't agree with each other in another city [laughter] can be very tough. So that's why I think that doesn't happen. >> I agree with you that a neighboring community is going to spend over a million dollars a year now for their sheriff's service and then their neighbor has a police department. But again like Joe said there was it was eight or nine 10 years ago they talked about maybe this would work but again the autonomy of what a city had it's like and so then it all falls apart that's why this has been kind of a delicate dance as well but it's a community of 400 and some people and a council like ours but yeah I agree with you to consolidate a lot of stuff it would make perfect sense but as we've seen so far government doesn't make perfect sense very well and I and I I I wasn't trying to say that we should do all that and go do shared services with all of our departments, but >> I I I just want to I just want to say this >> because I know I've opposed a lot of decisions here. >> Um if I had been here when this started and Bethl came to us for help, I would have had absolutely no problem helping them. I understand their situation. I just feel like it would have been easier and more efficient to just help them with their fire calls and charge them for mutual aid posts instead of all of this. I mean, this this is just it's really a lot. And I'm having a hard time if a taxpayer asked me like, why are we donating city assets to a separate entity and literally having less control over it? I I'm I'm really struggling with that. And um I that's why I've been opposed um to so many things and asked a lot of questions. I I've tried to ask them in a professional, polite way. Um, but I I I would have never voted for this from from the get-go. Um maybe if I had been part of it all along and understood all of the um reasons, you know, I you know, I I could have been convinced, but coming into it at this point when there's a whole manual written and I haven't seen it, that's hard for me to understand what all of these changes will be when I haven't seen a lot of the information. And I I feel that it's it's it's taking away some I don't I don't want to use the word control. I'm not like a control freak, but it is taking away control from the five of us and giving it to two of us and two other people from Bethl and an outside party that I don't feel comfortable with. No, no personal thing to him. none whatsoever. And I I just I I don't think it's the right thing to do. Um obviously no one else on this council will agree with me. Everyone will vote. Well, there there's a there's a history with that too, though, that I think um >> I was on the outside looking in myself um when Steve was taking charge um in the initial talks with Kevin and Kevin been the main stay um the whole time with talks with Bethl, but understanding the nature of the volunteer paid on call fire departments and the struggles that the entire state is having with these situations. Um, also, you know, not every city can go full-time because of the budget, um, you know, factors into it. So, a lot of that comes from the nature of where I think a lot of these fire services are going to lead to. Um, again, we don't know when. Uh we don't know if we'll be in a district with say Now Then and Oak Grove or Ice Any or whoever you know um Oak Grove and and now then might do their own thing and and want to join up with you know Andover or Ramsey again or whatever. Um, we have no idea where this is going to go, but I think the nature of the paid on call fire department is struggling a lot and there's been a lot of strain on it throughout the state and I believe throughout the country if I remember right. Um, I've read a few articles on that too that have popped up on the news um, while we were going through this stuff too. Um, and that's what leads to having to even consider these these types of uh arrangements is the the need the need and the need of having to have a fire department for one and two the cost and the cost effectiveness of joining forces. Um, but that's why we have the board as elected officials are there. Um, and you know, we we hope that they, you know, they're not they may or may not agree with us on everything, but we hope that they make decisions that we agree with and and we trust them as the people trusted them to elect them in the first place and then they're appointed to that board. But that's where a lot of this I get what you're saying Amy, but I think too that's that's the the history behind it gets deeper and leads you up to the point we're at now. And understanding some of those struggles and seeing some of those things um is why we're at where we're at. And we're thankfully in a position to help somebody and not need help um so to speak. But this this is a a struggle I think throughout the fire departments and the paid on call fire departments without having to go full-time at this time. >> Well, and Joe, I I I'm probably the only one up here obviously with the exception of Dave that truly understands the paid on call fire department and how it works and how vastly different it is than running a department of full-time people that are there every day. If you have a question, you can just go to the next cubicle and ask them. You have people coming and going all the time. You you're not together a lot. And it's managing of a a paid on call department is is just very different than than a full-time. And I understand that completely. And um and I just I just I just think that I I just want to say it that I'm not trying to be argumentative or or anything because I truly do understand the struggles. I just think it would have been a lot better if we had just helped Bethl out and they had stayed their department. You know, they if we could have just I mean they probably don't have hardly any calls per year like I mean I have no idea. more than you think. >> More. But if we could have just charged them for mutual aid calls and not had to transfer $500,000 in assets to a separate company, more than 500,000. And I I'm I'm really I'm really struggling with that. And um I I that's that's that's how I feel. And I'm I'm probably gonna I am going to vote no on anything that comes out of this. Um, eventually I'll obviously the individual questions I have to take those as they come, but I I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just I I just feel that >> I wish I had been more involved. I know I've only been here for um 11 10 months, but I >> those were meetings that you could have come to. And again, nothing against what you I mean, again, like Joe said, they elect us to come do a job and they hope we have the honesty, integrity, and sincerity to complete that job. And that's why we're here. You should maybe talk to the people of Bethl or go to a city council meeting in Bethl and ask employ them, why did you think this was such a great idea? Because they actually came to us. We didn't solicit them. >> I know that. >> But >> and I I'm not trying to say anybody's doing anything dishonest, but um I I integrity. I I need to say what I'm thinking or if I just keep my mouth if I just keep my mouth shut I I don't feel like I'm doing a service to this seat here and and I that's how I feel and so I just wanted to get that out there that >> I I feel that that would have been a better route from the beginning but >> we did propose that they were not in favor but so right there's two of us that are having this discussion and in fairness to you we explored Joe and Kevin can and even Mark for the amount of time he's been several different options over >> and the state fire marshals were involved every single step of the way. >> Yeah. >> And those are meetings I took on >> and I could appreciate right because you don't have the history so you're kind of coming at this a little bit blind from our lived experience and the discussions and and the late meetings and the pros and cons and how we ended to Joe's point how we ended up here. I I could very much appreciate that that's a difficult position. All I can tell you is this has been a long robust well-vetted wellargued at times process for the benefit of everybody both cities and at the end of the day the enduser because that's what matters most right we can argue about budgets and processes and policies and all of that other stuff what matters is the service that ends up at Mr. and Mrs. Smith's house and meeting that expectation. Right. The the other piece that I would add as just an articulation. You used to live in Oak Grove, right? >> I did. >> The Anoke County Sheriff's Office provided law enforcement, right? This is really no different. >> We're still providing the fire service. We're not changing anything from a service deliverable standpoint. We're essentially the sheriff's department, but for fire for two cities. Right. So, we're not recreating a a new wheel or a new widget. You know, I had a conversation with a with a fire chief today who was really struggling with the cost of running their fire department right now and wanted to start to unpack how we got to where we are when a fire engine now costs a million dollars. I'm sorry. St. Francis can't go alone anymore. Bethl cannot go alone anymore. Our neighbors are not that far behind unless we're ready and willing to bring on significant tax levies to stem the bleeding. We have to rethink how we do service delivery, especially in the fire service. I don't have a million dollars to replace a new fire engine right now >> or four years to wait for it >> or four years to wait for. We have to partner up. And to to Kevin's point, right, and Joe's point, trying to ha operate within that space with two independent councils rather than a collective joint board for purpose is the most effective and efficient way. And that's been proven across the state and across the country with departments that have chosen to go down this path. So, I get it. It's it's really hard to be in in any elected officials position when initiatives have been in place for years prior to you being elected, right? Or anybody being elected to try and catch up with really how complex and nuanced this process has been is difficult. I fully appreciate that and I fully understand. So, I don't think you're argumentative. I listen to everything that you say and and I just want to make sure that I'm also providing background and context of things that you weren't privy to. So, but point well taken it. It's a tough position for you to be in and I understand that and I appreciate that. >> I will say something too. And although although we're not going to be doing, you know, the loading on fire department things, we still have I mean we have Mark, we have Kevin, we have Dave who are going to be at the meetings. We can, I'm assuming >> we can any of the fire board meetings we want to go to or open to or they're going to be online or whatever. >> Um, and so I mean a as part of their council member reports. I'm sure they will both be adding things as they come up with the district. So we're not going to be totally dis there's not going to be this huge I don't see there's going to be this huge discount. >> I don't either. My hope is that this is seamless not only on the inside but on the outside, >> right? >> But probably fire district reports it during a council meeting, >> right? >> No different than what Kate's been asked to do now or the chief or the fire chief, police chief. >> Agree. >> And the only thing the only thing I would caution is that um if you watch the fire boards or if you attend them um as a council member um there's already two council members. So, if you have something you want to >> say about something you disagree with what the board did or didn't do, and I'm not sure where this ends up, but as far as open meeting stuff, I would address it at a meeting or a work session where it's been posted. Um, just because again, you get two or more than two members, I don't know how that affects open meeting laws, but just to throw caution to the wind, I would say say that. But we we'll be able to watch the meetings. I'm sure that >> we're still working on all the logistics of how we set this up and we had a lengthy discussion about what room do we host these meetings in? Are we council chambers? I think Mark and I both appreciate and Kevin appreciated more of the large conference room feel where we can just feel more connected in our conversations. But we're still working through a lot of that those logistics. mayor and council. We can also post his meetings that it may have a quorum. That's that's just a piece of paper on our billboard. So, that's easy to do, too. >> You stay your case. Well, thanks. Seriously, don't don't ever not >> It's pointless if you don't if you don't make your if you don't make your statement or your case, it's pointless to be on. >> I'm not just gonna sit here and not say. >> So, we're going to take all of the fire department employee stuff out of our manual. rental policies >> eventually. So, [laughter] mayor and council, I do need to do a housekeeping update today, but because they are still our employees until the end of the year, I wouldn't touch that until we have a full transition because I don't want to prematurely take any policies. So, probably in our housekeeping next year, we'll address anything that's fire related. Um, but that said, we still have to be careful because it is a recognized department in our ordinances. So even though it might be in our personnel policy, it is still reflective of our ordinances and could sit there just unused. So we'll see what legal recommends for that. >> That wraps up that one. >> That wraps up that one. All right. levy discussion. [laughter] >> Mayor, council, I'll kick this one off, I guess. So, in the couple meetings that we've had um when we set our levy in September, there was quite a bit of discussion about um you know, what can be pulled back, what you know, what can be cut. So working with the numbers um we pulled back was what is it roughly 95,000 Darcy and a lot of that is the inflationary so what we've got you know tonight is you know in July we had a projected rate of 16% September 16% and that included the um the storm water so that is the that would be the final number but at that point our levy alone was at about 11 something%. So what we did after pulling back roughly 95,000 in cuts leaves us with an overall rate of 14.47% that includes the storm water. Um you know and I and I make a note in here although it's not easier for our residents. I every city is feeling this pain right now. We have seen, Darcy and I have seen statewide numbers and they are literally from three and a half to 30%. There are some greater Minnesota cities that are just at the top of that scale and I this is a statewide issue right now. Um and and it's going to be a tough year across the state. I think with the county, the states, and even the federal decisions right now, we're we're all, you know, moving money and managing how we're going to use these taxpayer dollars. Within the the on page two of the agenda is a table and what it shows is the value and what had been proposed for a tax rate at the 16% with the cuts, you know, with cuts 2026. So that is at the 14% and what that yearly difference is. So somebody with a $350,000 house, you know, if we pull this back by 2%, they save $33 a year. Um, so with that at the end, we also put what some or I guess it's not at the end, it's in the middle, what some of those risks are. You know that pulling it back that 2% again, is that inflationary? if the market holds and um you know we've got a fairly light call volume or snow loads or salt, right? There's a lot of variables that move in our budgets. We're we're making an estimated guess in September for how much snow is going to be in December of 26 and right. So how many calls is is fire? How many accidents does police get into? So our budgets are set so early. We're basing these on the current year as well as the previous year and what is reasonable. So if the market holds with the inflationary numbers, it's a guess. We we could be okay. If the if we've got the blizzard of 91 starting in November and all through April and we've got overtime and we have a police officer out or we have three cars that get in accidents, right? Those expenses, those unknowns is what is going to be the risk that is going to be on the table. And with that risk, we would either have to come to you and say, right, reserves have to be used, but if we're res if we're using those reserves, that inflationary push will hit 27 both for, you know, the its own inflation because we would be doing the same steps for 27, but then also making up for some of that 26. So with that, there's two options on the table. We wanted you guys to let us know in December we need to create the documents, the resolution for the county, the PowerPoint, all things related to this budget. Do you want us to move forward at the 16% or at the 14%. And with that, I'm offering Darcy for any of the technical questions with the money. Um, and just yeah, answer any general questions. So, >> I have a question. So what you're saying there is that on October 27th today work session discussion projected rate of 1447.47 this figure was reached with a budget cut of roughly 95,000. Am I wrong? I think you meant not a budget cut of >> lower increase >> reduction >> is it? >> Well budget cut there's budget cuts to lower what we request for the levy. Do you get my question? >> Oh, I totally do because you've heard me speak about this before. Yes. >> So, >> so I mean it I don't like the word cut even though I understand that it results in a cut. >> It's a reduction. It's a reduction in increase is what it is. >> Yeah. So, is that what it is or is it really a cut cut? >> Well, it it's not lower than the >> original for 25. >> Okay. So, it's really a a lesser amount of an increase. >> A lesser increase. >> Okay. >> It's a cut to your preliminary levy that was set. >> Yes. >> Well, there's there [laughter] >> Yes. I I mean I think you know when when Kate ran this out I'm in favor of this and but I do have one question about it because when we talked about if we have to dip into reserves I remember our discussion last fall it was on just on council we talked about we had we could have thrown a hundred or $200,000 of reserves in to reduce it at that time because our reserves are actually a little higher than they need to be. Correct. According to the state auditor's office, yes, we're probably I think we're in the 60%s and they are between they recommend between 35 and 50%. >> Oh, >> but the thing is is that is based on your expenditures. So each year your expenditures are going to go up. You're you're you're not going to cut that. You're just not. So that amount becomes less with each year. So if we took that percentage is less each year because our expenditures naturally go up >> and does that affect Go ahead. >> No, go ahead, Joe. >> Does that affect your bond rating as well? What you have in reserves >> when you go for bonds? >> It can. They look at they look at reserves that you have. They want to see that you're managing what is thrown at you. are you prepared for what's going what's happening in the world? You know, kind of. >> So, they look at they look at cash balances, they look at reser uh fund balance, they look at reserves, all of that stuff. Yes. In a bond, >> I think I I just personally think this is a I don't think it's being irresponsible, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. I'm very appreciative of Darcy and Kate working on this. And you know, you know, my take on this is I think the city has to share some of the pain. And if this is the demolished pain and this is a token, it's token sharing the pain, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. And I'm appreciative of it. And I told Kate, I'm inclined to vote for the four 14.4 because it is it it does two things. It's it's a it shows that we're willing to share some risk and some pain. And it's not irresponsible to the point that I don't want to make comparisons, but like the water and sewer rates a while ago, I I you know, I I I don't think I don't think it goes down that same path. So that's that's just where I'm at, but everybody else got a weigh in here. >> I agree with you. Even though it only turns out to $33 per household, I I think I I think it's the right thing to do. We've had a lot of people in here saying we're spending too much money, so we should try to do something to to lower that for people. >> I'll chime in. um what looms over my in my mind is highway 47 and 20 2026 and 27's coming and how are we going to fund that you know there's going to our share is going to be in the millions how we fund that with uh this is nice I do appreciate the work done as well I know it's not the mayor's desire was to let's everybody give a little blood you know a pine of blood here a pine of blood there this is a little this is a creative way of going about it. Darcy, if we threw another 90 if we threw two more $95,000 at it, which would be $190,000, we're going to drop another Right now, the current drop is 1.62%. If we threw another $190,000 at it, two more, this is really elementary, but two more $95,000 from either the liquor fund or our reserves, we'd drop it then 4.86%, wouldn't we not? >> And then we'd be down to 11.23 instead of 16. That's wishful math. >> Um, >> would that work? >> No, in that um I mean you'd have to go through the p it's a percentage. You you'd have to look and see what your percentage is. So >> you you went from 16169 to 1447 for 95 grand. So if they gave you another 190,000, is that too simplistic of me to think that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Sorry. Sorry. >> Complicated. It would >> All right. But it's not a bad idea, you know, throw a little bit more. >> Yeah. But to me, I'll finish out with I I think it's it's it's nice that you did it. I still think it's a token. And like and I agree kind of with what the mayor said, you know, it's showing that we did something, but still next year and 27 are going to be a big deal, a really big deal. So I think people have already kind of accepted the fact that we, you know, we're we're greedy city council and we're just spending money like crazy. Well, we're not, but I mean, we we we've done frugal business up to this point. You know, like Joe says, there's going to be some phone calls made that you guys didn't do enough. You know, you give them a penny, you give him a pound. I don't know. But, uh, I do appreciate the the work that was put into it, but I'm already used to the 1609 1447 is, you know, it makes you feel a little warm and fuzzy inside, but I don't know. Um, and I and I know we can't go backwards. As I said before, I firmly believe in in the time I've been here that we've we've been frugal. We've spent wisely as we've gone forward. Even though many there are naysayers out there that we have not done any of that. Um I I I still happy with 160. I'm not happy. I'm content with 1609 and we've already let them know and like Kate put in here from one and a half% up to 30%. some of the other cities and stuff I've heard, they're they're building building and still doing stuff and it's u it's a lot bigger number than what we're talking about here. And I don't want people to leave. I don't want people to move. I don't want people to be disgruntled or upset uh that their taxes are going up, but again, uh social security, we got 2.8%. Uh all our colas in our city people got 3%. I shouldn't say got, they deserved it. Um, there's other we've got the Minneapolis teachers on strike going on strike tomorrow. Maybe not, maybe. So, they want 12 and a half%. It's like, where does it all stop? And I know that the citizens look at us thinking it needs to start now and it needs to start here. You know, um, you got if you want nice things and you want to move forward, you want parks and recreation and amenities and stuff. I don't know. You know, you can't do it on a wish and a prayer. So, I I appreciate what what work was done. I think I'm unfortunately I'll I'll grin and bear the 1609 myself, but I won't vote against this, but I don't think it's much of an offer. I mean, it won't appease the masses, let's put it that way. And again, I appreciate what everybody's done, but it won't appease the masses. >> Sir or Joel, >> I I tend to agree with with Kevin on this. I mean, we're we're we're throwing them just a little bit of a bone, but I think I think the that little bit could it could just [laughter] come back and bite us three times harder because we don't have a choice on 47. If we don't we don't do something to fix that, our residents are going to lose their ever loving minds and >> and and we're not we're do we give them this $33 now and then come back and [clears throat] next year and say, "Oh yeah, we gave you 33, but now we got to go to 99 because we have to have money for this project." There's no ifands or buts about it. This project has to happen. And although I I love seeing just that, you know, you know, we tried, we tried. >> It's a gamble. >> We tried to give you this this year, >> but to come back and have to take not only that $33, but take another 66 or whatever it is, it doesn't make us look any better. It just looks like, oh, you guys just kind of went like this and kicked it down the road again. We have to stop doing that. we have this project coming up that we have to face and we have to fund and there there of course we had some federal money come in we we have some other things that could come in but we're still going to have a huge huge cost >> mayor and council may so correct me if I'm wrong Darcy but right now we don't have anything budgeted for 47 knowing that we're going to have to pull a bond and it's the two projects. So, pavement up would be a bond and we're hoping that all of our uh grant that we received from my council will cover that. Pavement down is all water and sewer. So, it is the water and sewer rate users that are going to feel the pain from the So, right now, this budget doesn't doesn't prepare us for 47 either way. And then depending on how we have to pay for for our share of the improvements being pavement up or pavement down, we'll hit potentially all of our city with the pavement up and then double hit our rate users which was utility lines. So, um, this this doesn't even this does not account for what we need for, >> right? And and I realize that, but I'm just saying that that every cut we give them, we're going to still have to make up for that somehow. and knowing that we have this big project looming over us that our residents clearly want and we're taking out the we're taking out the stop lightss that they wanted and giving them something else that they clearly told us they didn't want and we're going to hit them with this huge bill for that too. it. I just don't think a a $33 at a boy is, you know, I don't I don't think that's enough for me to say. I mean, if it was $300, I might say, "Yeah, but for $33, I I don't think that it's enough for me to say that we should do it." >> The key word you have here, Kate, in your last paragraph is on page one is if the overall economy >> Yeah. cost of goods. There's there's and then the risk involved. Those that's what really swayed me. Uh I'm not much of a gambler. I'd like rather keep my pennies in my pocket, but it's if the if part and I know our citizens are living with the if as well. We have people tomorrow that their SNAP cards are day after tomorrow runs out. They're going to worry about macar and cheese and maybe cornflakes possibly. So, but like Sarah said, if we give them a if we give them a quarter now and we ask for a buck 50 next year, it doesn't mean much to me. It wouldn't mean that much. It would be kind of deceitful. But >> see, my but here's what one one of the problems I have with that though is let's just pretend everything goes great. We we don't have to we only got to plow one time. [laughter] We got we got a couple hundred,000 extra now. [cough and clears throat] We're not designated to we're not designated to highway 47. So if it was a if it was something that was designated towards that expected expenses on that project, but it's not. So essentially there's a there we talked about the world of if. So there's the potential that we could end up with a surplus and then where does that money go to the >> you would have a less of an you would have less of an increase the next year which would be still I mean you could apply it to next year's budget I would think with the extra cash reserves. I I think for me it's it's I would so I I appreciate the exercise Mark. Um, my issue with this little of a deduction and and I I say this with all due respect. I don't mean to throw shade at you, so don't take it that way. Um, it's probably going to come out that way. So, just know that I'm not I'm not trying to >> I can I can handle it, Joe. >> I know. Anyway, to me, it's and and I agree with you 100% that it's not at the level the water is. Um, but me being the only uh pardon the the phrase, but uh the only surviving council member from the 20% decrease from the increase that we had in 16 um in 2018, you know, I I got to be the hero and do what we ran on and lower the lower the fee by 20%. Uh well now because we did that and we didn't have that 20% throughout the last 8 years that's a large reason. Now granted we're not talking about 8 years whatever but that's a large reason as to why the increase is what it is today. So that is that is on me um as the member of the council that's still here from that. I was a hero that day and now I'm the villain. >> I'm still bitter. [laughter] And so I mean to me it's it's a it's kind of like to me it's it's the same thing is we can it's in my opinion it comes off as it's it's I get what you're doing and I get you know we're saying we don't need to spend so much money we need to bear some of the pain. I understand where you're coming from. However I think too that again it ends up being whether it's $3 a month now now next year we're asking for $10 a month. Say everything's glorious and beautiful. Great. we have an extra what 100,000 in in reserves, we can say, okay, instead of going up um you know 7% next year, we go up 6% or whatever. I'm throwing numbers out there that probably doesn't add up either, so don't get on me for that, Darcy. But um I mean that, you know, it's it's it's one of those things that yes, you can do that and say that. And again, reserves the percentage of reserves always goes down because of the the cost going up with everything. But I think too we're looking at multiple well possible multiple bonds depending on where the city goes. Um definitely a bond for 47 which again doesn't it's not affected by this budget but you would be the water users who are already getting hit because of my decision um are going to get hit again by say instead of a $3 increase now it's a $10 increase or whatever next year and maybe it's not and that would be great but I think too I I talked to one of our my my frequent flyers that likes to call me um and I really wanted to see what this person had to say and I, you know, I threw the scenario out. It's pay me now or pay me later, so to speak, right? Um, now granted, it may not be $10. It might be $6 we're asking for next year, but people are up in arms right now about the number that we have and understandably so with the building, with everything else, with all the maintenance funds and and this is part of my speech that I'll be given at my next council report. um all these things that we've implemented in that short amount of time which we've talked about before that has really kind of hurt us but the the question is too is those are things that we need to have and I think >> I think saving and I I hate to say it because the you know that oh it's only $12 a month it's only $10 a month when everybody's asking for $10 and $12 a month it does add up and when you got the school coming at us when you got um the county when you got all these other entities doing doing the same thing I understand it But to me, this this little of a of a decrease, which I don't think we can go lower either, by the way. Um, I mean, you could, I guess, but I think it would be very irresponsible to do that. Um, because you're going to pay for it later, and you're either you're either put, you know, we kicked the can down the road, so to speak. We we we complained about the previous councils doing what they did with the water by not preparing. Then um we did what we got elected to do, got it down 20%, thought we were heroes, thought we did the right thing, but we actually did what we were complaining about the other councils doing because we then didn't prepare for this today, right? Because we had that decrease. So we did the same thing they did and we did it because we thought it was the right thing to do and that's what the people wanted. Um people say they want lower taxes and they always say that and I understand that 100%. I I would love lower taxes as well, but I think too it's it's a lot of the people that say we spend too much money don't have the slightest clue what things cost and what it takes to run the city. And I I don't mean that negatively towards the residents. Again, it comes down to people that want to put the time in to understand these things. And a lot of them don't. And I don't blame them. It's not the funnest thing to to spend your free time on. um you know, so you you have to take the time to get educated and make those phone calls to understand what's going on and understand why things are the way they are. And I think if we go down 2%, we say, "Hey, we saved you three bucks a month." They're going to say, "Oh, big whoop. You guys are still spending way too much money. You're doing this. You're doing that." Not not a lot of people are going to be happy. And then we're hitting them harder next year potentially, right? We don't know. But doing what I did with the water and trying to do the right thing and learning from that mistake, I think that this is it feels like political posturing more than it does actually saving something. Um, now again, if there was an actual way where we could provide the services that we provide and save, you know, half a million dollars, hell yeah, let's do it. Um, I don't think that's obviously a a a likelihood and unfortunately what we're seeing. I mean, you can look at other funds and whatever whatever else that we've started to put into place and, you know, try to hurt those funds in order to give relief. But, you know, there's there's some I think there's some funds that you could say are considered negotiable. There's some, in my opinion, that aren't. Um, but I think too it's [snorts] I don't think this is enough to it just says, "Hey, look, we we're trying to save you money, but really you're saving three bucks a month and you know, my my Hulu's going up, my prime's going up, all the all those those things are going up, too." So, I get it. Um, when everybody's asking for it, it's tough. But I think, too, it's it's if we don't do it now, we're going to hit them harder later. And that's to me that's worse. Um, and it's not at the level of the water, but it's still worse because if they're pissed off about this extra $3 a month now compared to what we can give them, they're going to be really pissed next year when you got to charge them 10 or 15 or maybe it's only four. I don't know. But either way, it's I don't I don't see it being the risk the risk versus reward is is not worth the cut in my opinion or reduction. [laughter] And I I mean it's I don't know. It's it's [snorts] tough because I'd love to give people relief too, but I don't know. Like I asked this person in my frequent flyer, you know, what's I I can save you, you know, this this this year I might be able to save you save, right? Bad word, too. But save you three bucks a month based on your home value because I looked up their home value, looked up my home value. Um, you know, it's big whoop. But the other response I get is it should be zero. The city spends too much money anyway. So, you know, as little as possible, great. But then what if I got to charge a 10 now next year? How do you feel about that? And I didn't get a response from that. So, um, they're supposed to call me back and didn't. Um, but I really want to know what this person had to say because they're very vocal. Um, you know, and and very negative on anything that has to do with the city as far as finances because like all of us, I mean, I think we feel like that, you know, we're spending too much money, taxation, and all that. But that's where I lean anyway. I'll I'll shut up. I'm just rambling. I >> think we've got three to two consensus. something. >> I just want to clarify one thing >> in this >> I did try to account for the water and sewer on 47 in the water and sewer rates. Okay? Because there was a dollar amount that was given to me. If those dollar amounts are correct, I kind of said, "Hey, we're going to have a bond payment. These are what I estimated would be be those bond payments and work that into what I had uh proposed on the water rates >> originally. >> Yes. So that is in there >> to the extent of the numbers that I was given. Okay. So So that one hopefully won't hit them as hard as long as everything comes through the way it's supposed to. Mhm. >> Well, and plus with everyone, it seems like everybody wants us to do something about 47. So, it since it's something that everybody is can clearly see a need for, those increases aren't going to aren't going to I'm hoping >> I don't think that's going to be the case at all. >> Everybody wants everything and they don't want to pay for anything. They're not going to >> this the pavement part. Like Kate said, there is not a number in the street fund for that. So that is going to be an adjustment moving forward. >> And the perfect you're right, Amy. People would be like, we're just so happy this is getting fixed. But I I'm still bracing myself for for for some kickback when people really actually realize that. I mean, we spent a lot of time and energy and money on coming up with a plan and we just on them and said, "Nah, we're going to do what we want anyway." Which is something >> Are you saying because we went from two stop lights to clearly what people told us they wanted and we explained to them the cost that it would incur to the to the city and they still said that is what we want. We heard it over and over and over at every meeting I went to and everything I attended and everything and everything. And now we're and and I'm I'm not in favor of of doing that at all. And I was very vocal about that. I I don't like the fact that we I I will akin it to when the school district put all the money into finding out if what people wanted for school colors and for the mascot. And then even though the results clearly came back with the public went the school board went completely different and said no we're going to do it this way anyway. People were are still upset about that. I'm not looking forward to that one. I mean hopefully with the cost being less but I don't think that's going to take a sting out for the girls' families who got hit there. I that's not going to help them at all. there. Chris, the little bit that I've talked to him is irate because he feels like they were promised something and and now that his daughter is no longer in the picture anymore, we can just we don't care. So, I I don't think that it's going to be as easy as what you think it is. I think when people actually see the price tag of what we're going to have to pay, no matter stop lights or roundabouts, it's not going to be fun. But it's a must do it. >> We have to do it. I get that. I get it. It just >> so is keeping our water rates where we can keep our our water at a >> at a level where we're not getting fined by agencies because we're not complying or or we're not able to keep [laughter] our wastewater treatment facility open because we are running we're not charging enough for for what it costs to have that water. So no matter what, we're always going to have people who aren't happy. Um >> well, and even just some recent history, we had people say that they did not want the apartment building and didn't care about paying for higher water and then they seen the higher water price that was proposed >> at that same meeting >> and then they're not happy with that. So it's it's not [snorts] they say what they feel at the moment. They don't necessarily always and I I'm I've done the same thing myself. I'm not, you know, bismerching anybody for it. I was so mad about the water rates initially >> and that's what got me involved to begin with and I was very ignorant on how things actually work. I mean, it's just it's it's whether or not you want to learn more and understand more, too. But it's it's people say what they feel at the time and those feelings can change and they can change very fast. So, it's just because people say things a lot of times, I mean, I would love to do the will of the people and give them everything they want. it's it's not [snorts] going to happen. It's just not realistic and financially it's not doable. Um you can't have everything and not pay for it. Um it's just unfortunately the way the way it is. So that's that's you know I'd love to give everything everything to everybody that they want but we you just can't. >> Do you need anything else? >> No Mary unless Darcy otherwise I think we have our direction. So our direction is I'm going to propose I'm going to the truth and taxation or first meeting in December will be based on what the preliminary levy is was >> 169 is what I'm hearing. >> Okay. >> And then Kate, where when will we see um the next um on the next meeting? Will we see the fire department stuff or when will that come back on the council agenda? >> Mayor, I don't know if it'll be on the next meeting. I haven't seen any of the come back from shops yet, but it's got to be one of the November meetings. So, if not, >> yeah, the next one is next week. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I don't have her back yet, so I assume at least the second >> and we just answered questions that probably need to be addressed in it, too. Yeah. meeting adjourned at 86 p.m.