[Music] Heat. Heat. So, um, it's Monday, May 12th, 2025. This is a study session of the Minnetonka City Council. I'll call this meeting to order and then I will turn to um Miranda and we will start with uh introductions and go around the room. Erna Diamond, assistant city manager. Darren Nelson, finance director. Mike Funk, city manager. Uh, Kimberly Wilurn, Mitan City Council at large. Pat Bolton, Ward One. Rebecca Shack, W two. Bradome, mayor. Paula Romey, w three. Deb Calbert at large seat A. Eric Nelson, city attorney. Scott Barbin, police chief. Kelly OD, recreation director. Sarah Westy, assistant recreation director. Jason Tate, deputy chief of police. Sarah, senior management coordinator. Julie Wish, development director. Kevin Fox, fire chief. Will Manchester, public director, Mary, assistant finance. Kevin Ringoffer, resident. Tom Stalker, resident. All right. Well, welcome everyone. Um, I hope everyone had a nice Mother's Day and a a good weekend. And, um, with that, um, we get to the business items. I'm going to turn it over to Mike. Thank you, Brad. Good evening, council and staff. Uh, tonight we have two agenda items. Uh before we get to our agenda items, just want to note there is an agenda for your consideration this evening. Uh there was in the packet for item two tonight which was a deeper dive into budget. Uh we had put in there the staff presentations from the March study session. Inadvertently the public works presentation was not in that. So in your agenda is is public works. Uh so that just want to just point that out to you this evening. And then also council member Kley is absent. Uh she did send in some written comments to me. I have printed those off. Excuse me. And those are in front of you as well. Make sure we'll get that over to our city clerk uh for posting I think in our packet as well. So with that, that's just a couple updates and then I'd like to really turn it over to our rec director and assistant rec director, Kelly, um and Kelly Oda, I think, is going to lead the presentation and then Sarah Wesie will I think also be assisting. So, Kelly and Sarah, really with tonight's two items, the first one again is revisit of our recreation facilities. And really, I think I teed this up last time in our study session in that rewind the clock to a month ago. We had our fire chief here, Kevin Fox, presenting on the facility studies related to the fire stations. And then what we wanted to do this evening uh as it relates to our major facility discussion is to revisit our recreation facilities. This is the same information that was presented to you over about a year ago and thought it'd be just a really good opportunity to have a refresher on what that looked like. And so Kelly and Sarah will go that do that this evening and then after that we'll rettee up then our overall budget conversation. With that, mayor and council like to really turn over to Kelly and Sarah. Sounds good. Sarah's actually going to start. Oh, okay. Excellent. Welcome. There you go. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, so like Mike said, this is going to be a refresher and at the end of this, we just want to make sure that you're still in support of the preferred options that we discussed last year or if you have any changes to those options. So, first slide, I just want to go over the timeline of what's happened over the last several years. As you know, kind of what kicked this off is the purchase of the marsh in February of 2023. Uh, and then we did open in May that year. So, we just had our 2-year anniversary and had a little celebration a couple weekends ago. Um, after purchasing the marsh, we did conduct a study. So, that took place from fall of 2023 to spring of 2024. And then we came back to you to um go through that draft study in April of 2024. And then you accepted that in May at May 6 of 2024. And then we talked about it through the budget process for the 2025 discussion. So what was in the study? So the full study did get put in the packet in case you needed to refer to to it. But what we were studying was Glen Activity Center, the community center, Williston, and then the marsh. And it included community engagement, the facility assessments for each facility, space needs and recommendations, and then cost estimates. So that's really kind of the high level what we've been doing the last several years and why we're here to talk about our facilities. and then I'll have Kelly go through each of the facilities um in detail. Sounds good. So, the first one is Glen Lake Activity Center. Um you know, a couple points here is it's it's a building that's definitely dated. Uh it was an old fire station back in the day. I think many of you have seen it uh underutilized. Right now, we uh scheduled about 400 hours of use per year, which has been consistent over the past few years. Uh and then with the addition of a few new areas, including Ridgdale Commons and the Marsh, that space has been kind of relieved of pressure. We have other meeting spaces within uh other city facilities. So again, we've got about 400 hours that we currently use for whether it's wreck programming or rentals like Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, things like that. Uh the two options that came from the study, uh number one was to just demo the building and kind of prepare it for our skate park. We've been talking about a skate park, an enhanced skate park in Glen Lake. Uh that would cost about $112,000. for the second option was a partial demo and then a renovation of that building and that was a little bit over $800,000. So, we brought that to you last year, discussed those options and we heard feedback from the council that it seemed like number one uh that just the demo of the building seemed to be kind of the preferred option. So, again, we're just here to to refresh your your memory of what we discussed last year, the study, see if you're still in agreement with that or if you have any other comments or changes. But, we're we're still looking at the skate park. our our park and trail planner, Matt Kuma, is working with a designer right now to design that area, specifically that park area, which would include a skate park. We do have dollars set aside in our CIP for 2026 for that. So, um, you know, we still think that that's a a good spot for a skate park. So, mayor, I don't know if you want to talk about each facility or if you want to go all the way to the end after four, whatever. Well, I Yeah, let's I think let's go through let's go through all four and if anyone has questions, we'll we'll get them asked at the end. Sounds good. Uh the second building is a community center. As you know, we are right adjacent to the community center. It's a well-used facility, senior programming. We get a number of rentals, whether it's weddings, um celebrations of life, things like that. Then we also have a lot of meetings and events here too. So, kids fest, um city council meetings, all the commissions meet here. So, uh it's a really busy facility, especially with the senior programming. If you come in the weekday mornings, it's a busy place. Lunch and movie today had 100 plus. So, uh definitely a very busy building. Uh you may remember that before we purchased the marsh, we had some plans to remodel the the facility. Um that was in 2022. Uh updated finishes. We you know it was a little bit dated here as well. Um restrooms needed some attention and then a more prominent updated front desk. So the plan was to update that. We had bids out. We actually had some some good bids that came in. Um so that is option number one was to just move forward with those plans that we had before we purchased the Mars Marsh back in 2022. uh price tag on that was $2.7 million. And then when we looked at that study last year, there were two alternates. Uh and I think the council discussed alter option number two here, which was some updated lounge improvement uh with some self-s served coffee areas. And then there was a second alternative that would include an uh a different exterior addition so you could get to some of the areas of the community center a little bit easier. So, when we talked about those, it seemed uh council seemed um supportive of still doing that renovation and with the potential of adding that uh option number two for $15,000. So, some enhanced lounge areas. I'll move on to the next which is the Willis Fitness Center. So, Willis Center is busy. Um currently has 10,500 members. Um you know, active uses there. We've got the tennis courts, fitness, swimming pools. Um it's been very very busy for a number of years, which is a good thing. We renovated that building back in 2010. That really kind of prompted uh I think before that renovation we had just under 2,000 members and like I said we have 10,500 members right now. You know some of the constraints would be the lobby. Some of the common areas uh treehouse is busy. Um the parking is can be challenging at times. Locker rooms I think specifically are are definitely challenging at times. So really it was kind of an alle cart option where we looked at a number of different options. Um those range from anywhere from $100,000 to 20 plus million dollars. So if you want to go to the next Yeah. a big range. So if you remember this slide, we we see both levels of Willis here where we have specific boxes and we talked in detail and got good feedback in detail from you all last year about some of the things that maybe were preferred or some of the things that weren't preferred. Uh an example would be uh on the right hand picture option number 11. So that would be in addition to the south side of the tennis courts that would look at pickle ball. that was uh you know it'd be wonderful to get pickle ball but the price tag on that maybe wasn't wasn't the best. Um number 12 the tennis court that was adding air conditioning to the tennis court probably a nice thing to have but maybe not necessarily one of our top priorities. Um the picture to the left shows uh number six and seven. Number six would be an expanded um splash pad. So we've got our main lap pool and we've got our splash pad. That would be an expanded splash pad. And number seven was park additional parking into that hill on the east side of the building. Um so those were some of the things that um maybe weren't the top priority. So as as we looked through uh these we thought you know and when and we kind of summarized it as interior high use common spaces um you know fitness areas locker rooms spaces where people travel through were were kind of the highest priority. So um in that range of 100,000 to 20 plus million those came in with a price tag of about $5 million for for those. And then the last building is the marsh. So as Sarah mentioned, we purchased the Marsh in 2023. Um, so we've been operating it for two years right now. Um, it's it's well used as when we took over, we estimated the YMCA had about a thousand members or so. Uh, we're over 7,000 members right now, which is uh, which is amazing. So, a lot of people are coming through the door. It's a very busy facility. Um, we're starting to see more people rent rooms. We're starting to see more people participate in programs that we're offering. So, um things are definitely trending in in a good way. High demand for for certain um aspects of that. The therapy pool is I think the thing that's really sought out of sought after. Um a lot of the yoga classes and the mind body classes are very popular, but it's it's definitely a dated facility. The building is 40 years old. Um it probably the deferred maintenance, you know, is extensive. The the YMCA and andor the previous owner was probably deferring some of those large ticket items. So, um the study presented four different options. Um option number one was just to do some of the deferred maintenance and an interior refresh of the building. Uh that was about a $7 million price tag over 10 years. Option two was a renovation and program expansion. So that looked at updating everything. So that included everything in option one plus some significant renovation both both the east and west portions of the building. So the west side would where the restaurant and cafe would be and then on the east side where we have a lot of the rental space. Option three was all of option one and two plus the addition of an event pavilion on the west. So think of where the it's a parking lot right now but to the west of the cafe where we could add an event pavilion. And then the fourth option was to sell the property and that that's always been an option and I think the council had that they're open-minded and and all the options were on the table. you know what we heard last year and was was a lot of people kind of gravitated toward option number two is what we heard. Um definitely a big price tag but I I think that's what we kind of heard. We did have a couple people who were talking about the pavilion but uh you know funding sources obviously that's that's the big big key issue here. So couple pictures from uh the marsh some of the renderings. So option two which again we talked about a little bit more detail uh again both the east and west side. So large scale renovation to the uh the areas the retro areas on the um west side east side I'm sorry and then on the west side the cafe including new office space I think the next slide shows different levels so kind of where we have the some of the meeting spaces there more of a more rental space um more options for people who come in and have events and and parties and things like that and then definitely updating the locker rooms I think the locker rooms are kind of a in an awkward space and to get from awkward uh locker rooms to pool areas is is challenging and so just a big overhaul of locker room areas seemed uh like part of that. Option three, as I mentioned, was that expansion to the west. So, as you can see, they've got that uh pavilion type style um piece structure on the west of the cafe. And that was just the rendering that would show option three. So, that's a quick overview of of where we were. Again, we're just here for a refresher to see if if you had any other thoughts, any ideas, if you agreed with what we kind of discussed last year. Um, open for questions or comments, I guess. Great. Thanks, Kelly. Um, yeah, that I think you covered it very efficiently and I I think you uh um laid out the options well. So, I think first thing I'll ask the council is do you have any questions um about what we just saw or the status of things? Any questions? Then we'll go to comments. Um yes, Kimberly. So, um if I remember correctly, the the um packet said that the marsh um is in the CIP. Does that does that mean that there's like funds already set aside? I think the only the only one of the four that's in the CIP is the Glen Lake Activity Center. Glen Lake. Okay. Correct. Yep. And that's included within that skate park project. Correct. Got it. The other three and I think Darren and Mike are going to talk more funding options and strategies when we get into the budget discussion. Um but yeah, the the um the CIP just included G Lake. All right, Paty. Um, so is the Glenn Lake Activity Center, is it going to fall over or is the roof going to cave in or is anything like like like we need to get this done this? Uh, the Glenlike Activity Center is not going to it's not going to cave in. You know, right now we're seeing about, like I mentioned, about 400 hours per year of rental. Uh, you know, there's an operating cost to that building. It's anywhere from 12 to 15,000. We bring in some dollars in revenue, maybe 3 to 4,000. So there's a there's an operational cost to to Evan Glenn Lake, but um we're not sticking significant dollars in for capital projects, roofs, and things like that. We're we're operating it and we we have, you know, the people who use that building, it works for them. Um but people aren't requesting coming in and requesting that building. It's just not uh the the most attractive space to rent. So, if if we didn't do anything with the Glen Lake Activity Center right now, could we reallocate that money that 112,000 or whatever? I'm going to I'm looking at just to see how that would work. Um I was hoping that was rhetorical. Right. Right. Um the question, no, the the look. Thank you. Um, would that So I I I thought your 124,000 was built into the cost of the whole skate park, which correct. Does the design include that footprint of that area? I don't that's what I don't know. Right. So it feels like you wouldn't want to take that out. I mean, we we're kind of scheduling that for the skatepark, I guess. And so um Okay. And that is in, you know, we're planning that that's scheduled for 2026. So it's not like Okay. Years away, right? Yes. So, just to follow up on that first, um, is that meaning then that you can't go ahead with the skate park design? It would be hard to do that unless we demo that. You'd have to design it around it, right? Otherwise, yeah, I think, you know, right now Matt is looking at options, working with consultants to do that. And the I think the plan is to design it without the building. Okay. Correct. That's that's what I kind of wanted to to that's based on what we heard last year. I think that was kind of the direction. And so we we're planning to design. Just wanted to kind of confirm that. Um and then what is the do we know what the use of the current spa p skate park is? Do we have any sense of of usage on that at all? I and is it going to be something like Wist when you think when it's updated they will build it and they will come sort of thing. Is that sense? Yeah, that's what we're hearing. I think the size of our skatepark right now it's about 4,000 square feet I believe and it's it's a pretty small skatepark compared to some others and I think that's what people are looking for more of a regional type size skate park. Um so yes I believe I don't know the exact numbers of how many people are coming right now but uh they we have been told that if we update features and sizes and it's it's just an older style as well. Sure. Right. Got it. And um let's see for the marsh, are you kind of projecting the same thing would happen um or anticipating the same thing might happen as it did with Williston as you know once you kind of put some renovation dollars into that then you would see increased membership. Um it looks like you went up you know at least doubled if not more at Willist during that post 2010 period. Are you thinking something similar might happen to the marshes and capacity for that? I think that is something we're thinking of and and I do think that when when I look back at some of the numbers and I'd look today just to see what Willis the city bought it in 1995, you know, it was about eight years before the Willis Center broke even and then for another eight years it was kind of hovering around break even before we renovated and we when we renovated we had 1,900 members and within a couple years it was up to 7,000 and 8,000 and then we were we were making dollars and able to put some dollars away for capital. So yes, I think it gives you more opportunities to once you know membership options, program options, I think it would obviously large ticket item, but um when when you think about operating after it gives you more options and flexibility. Yeah. Yeah. Especially when you think of what like Plymouth just for other places are spending. Um okay, thank you. I think that was those were my main questions. Any other questions, Deb? I I don't have a question, but I just want to make a comment about the the the way the study was done about the the marsh. I just the data that we got about the wellness center aspect was so informative and really sort of pointed out for people that might not understand the allure of that particular facility. um just how unique it is anywhere, let alone for a municipal uh facility. So um I just wanted to say it to thank everybody for including that in the packet because it helps sort of inform the type of services that are being provided and what kind of spaces we might need there. And so, you know, it's just helpful as we think about what we might do there if we do anything. Great. Anything else? Any other questions? Well, Kelly answered the question that I wanted to raise was, you know, the the Glen Lake Activity Center um really doesn't fit in with our long-term plans, I don't think. Um but the fact that, you know, it's um 12 to$15,000 a year to just keep it as is. Um you do the arithmetic on that and the cost of demoing is $113,000. I mean, um, at the at the current run rate, you know, that's about that's about eight or nine years. Um, and so then you spent the money and you still have the building to figure out what to do with. And, uh, I just think, as unfortunate as it is, I'm I'm a person who doesn't like to throw things away. But, um, I've spent enough time at the Glen Lake Activity Center as I I understand why it is, you know, it's not we're not getting much rental, um, benefit from it. I mean, it's it's nice to have storage, but it's it's a much higher potential piece of property for the city than it's um currently providing. So, I think that's the run rate is something to consider as we as we have to make a decision on that because I was saying, well, gee, that's the last priority, but but given the fact that it's $13,000 a year we're spending to just kick kick the can down the road, for lack of better terminology, is is something that weighs on me pretty pretty heavily. and and then given given the uh the skate park and a better higher alternative use I think those are pretty compelling. So council other other comments as we I mean the big question here is do we do we want to change the the priorities and um and we've got those laid out on page four of the staff report. Rebecca, um, you know, answering this question without like a, you know, a funding stream is almost like, you know, asking Santa for a pony, you know, because do it all, you know, I mean, um, which doesn't seem realistic, but I think from a deliberate standpoint, I, you know, the community center is, I would be nice to have some kind of sense of, you know, we would anticipate an increase in revenues at this capacity and know that's to a certain extent asking to look into a crystal ball. The things I'm most concerned about are the usability and from a from the sense of you know the restrooms and um this is where the seniors are coming and it's not ideal for somebody with significant mobility issues or or disabilities. And so those things are important to me. I'll just kind of check off the list. Glen Lake I for from my perspective we've kind of made the decision on that and I think you know the mayor's spot on. And also there's no way to make that building desirable. I mean I hate to throw things away but sometimes you know the underwear has holes in it and there's nothing you're going to be able to do. So um I think we're just about nasty. Sorry, we're just about there. Um, as far as Wilson, I guess, you know, Wilson is kind of a I I almost hate to see it get short shrift. You know, I think some of us talked about this right after that joint session with the park board because it is a known commodity and you know it is at maximum capacity and we can make it a little more comfortable for the people that use it. But I think there maybe are some missed opportunities there. I think you could do a significant draw on lessons and revenue generating with a year round decent pick them in the pickle ball there is pretty tough now. Um things like that. So you know I hate to put more on the table but the option the you know adding some space there to me is still a little bit on the table. Um, I think the marsh we're at a point where, you know, it's going to need significant investment and we either have to find, you know, determine how we're going to pay for it, whether it's $7 million or $30 million. It's probably going to be either sales tax, if that's ever an option, or bonding. I mean, those seem to be the only options. And I think um if we're going to keep it and I and I feel like this council is committed to keeping it, then at least option two needs to happen, that investment. Um, I spoke at length with Mike this morning about, you know, understanding maybe the tale on the what it's going to take to get into the black because I don't think it's going to be in perpetuity that, you know, it's in the red. I think we're we're getting very close. We're we're surpassing our initial um projections. And I also I also think there's you know and the mayor has talked about this as well. I think there's a lost opportunity for some structuring fees in a way that maybe requires those folks with means to pay a little bit more, especially with silver sneakers and the structure of some of those payments because there's plenty of people that go there for free, you know, and I I can go there for free and you know that they absolutely have the means to pay some kind of not insignificant but not like backbreaking. Willist. Yeah. Well, I mean the silver same situation at Willist though. You have silver sneakers. You can sign up. I mean it's kind of a weird situation. You could sign up for 20 health clubs on your silver sneakers and be classified as a member and not have any skin in the game. You just go where you feel like going. Yeah. and and revenue is basically a paper swipe thing. So, so anyway, that's that's a whole another story. But, you know, if we're going to I think we have to try to figure out how to move the ball forward or have some kind of plans or or you know, we're going to be facing an emergency with a roof situation or something else and I'm very worried about that. Other Yes, Paula. Yeah. Comment question. And I went meant to ask about that that kind of proforma statement that was in the packet I think page 45 or something like that. Anyway, just you know what we're how close are we to that because there was something in there about meeting 300,000 that was from last year kind of an update on on on that and then um you know kind of agree with everything else that has been kind of said. I think it's 45 let me check. Um but anyway 145 sorry right. Yeah, I mean I I don't know. I haven't looked at that page specifically, but you know, I think it when you're talking about the financials, we are trending towards break even for sure. You know, we we've only had it for two years of which that first year we had a lot of one-time big upfront capital cost. So, we really are looking at, you know, a year and a half's worth of data, but yes, we are definitely trending towards that. Like I said, you know, when I looked back at Willis, it was about eight years before we broke even. So, I think it's it's a slower trend, but we are trending towards breaking even. Yes, we're seeing more people more than quickly more quickly than correct. So I think that's Yeah. Yeah. Um really encouraging tough question but yes I mean it's moving that the numbers from 23 and 24 and early and 25 are looking good. And then how how you know dicey are we looking at for some of these things these you know potentially catastrophic roof things? I mean can we limp along I guess is a question from this year because last year it was like yeah we can limp along. Yeah. And and I think we can I think it you know it would be wonderful if we knew that there was a plan knew the plan that you know in X date we were going to be doing this that helps us with operational needs and some of the bigger tickets you know decks and roofs and HVAC units and things like that. Then I guess I'll just finish up with my comments and then I agree that you know kind of talking about this um without you know having some sense of funding mechanisms is you know speaking in a vacuum and not only you know for these facilities but you know kind of the broader discussions of our big ticket items that we have in the budget as well that go beyond you know this whether it's fire stations or you know kind of some of the other things that we have and you know it's hard for me to uh prioritize guys any differently. I pretty much am on board with last year's um where we're at last year and and kind of doing the some some of the things that council member Shaq um brought up again, you know, deferring in agreement with you. It's hard to kind of even really have a serious discussion about this until we kind of learn some more about local option sales tax and some other um you know potential options for funding because Yeah. Yep. All right. Other comments from Kimberly, there you are. You know, if you'd sit closer to me, never mind. So, yeah, I'll go through. So, Glen Lake, I'm pretty much in agreement. I wish, you know, if it didn't cost eight times as much to renovate as it does to tear down, then I might like fight harder to keep it, but it just doesn't make sense to keep it. So, I would say yes, I'm still in agreement on that. um the marsh. So, like everyone else when I looked at unless we um identify a funding source, I'm not sure I'm still on board with with option two. Um I think definitely we need to replace the roof and do some of these structural things that unfortunately no one's going to see. Um but and you know maybe put some new flooring in the locker rooms cuz the carpet is tragic. Um but again like so I guess I would I would lean more towards option one but agree to option two if we could find if we could work out funding. Um, and yeah, I'm is agree with uh with Rebecca on the community center and Wilston other other comments. Just just quickly, I totally agree about um Glen Lake Activity Center. I just think it is past its useful life. I think we discussed I think we came to an agreement a long time ago on that. I think um you know in addition to not understanding the funding source, I just think the economic uncertainty with sort of everything that's going on at the federal and state level um just adds complexity to making decisions because it's not just spending the money and you know like finding a funding source. It's that we don't know what condition our taxpayers are going to be in. you know, are we going to go into a recession? Are are we going to be looking to make sure, you know, they can keep a roof over their heads and clean their mouths? Um or or the ops. I mean, it's just so uncertain. So, that makes me, you know, it's just very hard to make these kinds of decisions. But I think everyone I think the other thing is there are really good options. I what I'm hoping is that we can maybe say with the marsh I think that there are some things like the roof or whatever that are you know I really don't want to defer them until we do have a bigger problem but I also wonder if we can just make a plan to phase in instead of you know like pick pick things that that are going to be meaningful and visible to people that will help generate revenue and you know get people in the door. Um you know maybe it's renovating some of the meeting spaces because those are rentable and those would be revenue generating and sort of um and also you know safety things or like hygienic things like in in the locker rooms or whatever. Um and then start picking away at some of the bigger things. I'm just wondering if we can figure out a way to do sort of all a cardart and just keep on building on it as we or if it's better to just rip the band-aid off and just like, you know, do it all. It's hard to know. So, sorry I'm a little wishy-washy, but those are the things that are going through my mind. And I agree with uh Rebecca. I don't want to give Willist short shrift, and I'm just trying to keep an open mind. I'm I'm I'm kind of in a sweet spot with the decisions that we made before, but I just think everything's too uncertain to be um rigid. Yeah, Mayor, that's that's pretty much like looking over the budget and the kind of taxes and revenue and expenditures. It just overwhelmed me and it made me and and I felt the same way like this is this is a different year. I mean, last year we made all these decisions about Glen Lake Community Center, but we didn't see what was coming. We didn't know. And that's my my reaction was we have to make sure we have to do everything we can to be stewards of the taxes that we don't really we can't and you know, this future is scary at the very least. And um my that my concern that's my that's I'm just reacting to you know what what can we do to make sure that that you know because costs are going up you know the revenue from businesses is going down. I mean, it just didn't it just looked like Mhm. you know, trouble. And I just really want to make sure that, you know, we don't back ourselves into a corner or dig ourselves a hole that we can't get out of. Question. Paul. Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Um, just one more quick I guess question is that I'm assuming this is kind of maybe this is like the budget kickoff like we we don't have to make final decisions tonight on any of this. This is stuff that you know in principle we can kind of keep this as our our template maybe do a few other things like looking at in at the phased in issues and then just kind of keep going forward with you know like generally we're here but we're kind of maybe teasing out a few more of uh you know the possibilities in terms of maybe you know like the alocart the only thing I'll say about the marshes the other remember is that we have an aging population um in Minnetonka unless that trend reversals. So, we're looking at more and more 55 plus folks um in the community. So, you know, I don't want to give short shrift to Williston, but I also want to make sure that, you know, we're kind of providing facilities that kind of serve everybody. So, um, just aim quick statement that, and I'm sure this applies to everyone, but, um, and I I imagine we'll talk about it more when we get into the budget, but part of my thinking on all of this is that we had a the the presentation from the fire department on the the fired stations that we need that we're going to need to renovate or move or rebuild. Um, and you know, when we're looking at priorities, I've got to put fire safety above a nicer looking uh recreation facility. So, that's part of my my reticence to to spend money or to what's the word I'm looking for? Allocate promise resources. Yeah. um resources for that when we when when we've got these other needs that are also very important. So, thank you for that. Any other comments? Um because I've got a few um you know, so you know, I think we did a pretty good job um in 2024 of laying out priorities and I don't think the priorities changed that much. However, um I I think the point that Kimberly just made is is really relevant. Um we I think we are entering a period where we are going to need to focus on austerity to the degree possible. And that doesn't mean we stop doing everything. It means that okay, you know what are what are prudent least cost options um is kind of the way I I pose it. And so, you know, the Glen Lake, I mean, the Glen Lake um community uh center um you know, the the lowcost option is is is that demolition and over time that that makes sense. I mean, I I we should do that sooner rather than later because let's let's get the cost out off the books. Um the community center I really feel is is my second priority. Um because it's such an important part of our community. um it gets the attention. Uh we bought the marsh um kind of on the back of the up the renovation of the um of the community center and I think that as we look at our facilities um redoing the community center will um make that um more vital and um and uh that will help our revenue and uh um but you know let's not act like we're going to make money on it but we're um it will help cover the costs and and I think that's you know if if I only going going to do two things. Those be the the only two things I would do um initially. But um you know, as I look at Williston, um I probably would um um do as little as possible with Williston. Um part of my rationale is um you know, Williston is what it is. Um that building um is never going to be the best building it could be. It's not going to it's not going to win awards for being the best community center in the in the metro. Um I kind of term it it's a rather proletarian place. I mean it's not fancy. It's um but it's functional and um and the other thing is it's not that I mean it was re renovated. I mean the difference between what it was before the renovation and is vast and you know it's got 10,000 members. Um, if it were that bad, it would be back down to 2000. Um, and so, you know, I'm not a believer that you you put things off until, you know, the place is falling apart, but, you know, we designed it um with to use what we what we had to use. That is a highly constrained space. Yeah. And you know, it kind of begs the question, are further renovations for Williston, other than other than taking care of the cosmetics and and and making sure everything's working? You know, are we better off saying, you know what, we're going to this this place has a shelf life of X. We're going to keep it running. And then if we're really serious about being a class A community, we're gonna have are we're gonna have to come off come over and build something um you know be by rink A or rink B or some I mean just start with a blank sheet of paper like a lot of other cities are doing um you know I think if we keep adding on and trying to squeeze and cut into the hill and we're doing a lot of expensive things that don't solve the fundamental problems that you know this isn't a this isn't a great building. It's the building we've got. And so, you know, I think we should maybe take a step back and look at more expansively for the long term. Um, make it as good as we can with what we've got. But we we could make all sorts of improvements to Williston and it would never be a great community center. It would be an adequate community center for Minnetonka. And so, we have to kind of think through what we want. And that's beyond the scope of what the facility study said. But I think, you know, let's look at things expansively. Let's not act like the only option we have is to to renovate what we've got. We've got some not ideal buildings just like the just like the Glen Lake Activity Center. It's not an act, you know, it's time to tear that one down. You know, maybe 10 years from now it's going to be time to tear Williston down too and start over. So, let's not throw too much money at that one. Let's be realistic about that. And then, you know, um I don't think we're in the same place with the Marsh. Now, everyone will accuse me of, well, you know, you were a strong proponent of the marsh and you're biased and, you know, there's some truth to that, but but I think that um I would I would my preference with the marsh would be to do to refresh the marsh. I just think we're in a period where austerity is going to be necessary. Let's let's refresh the marsh. Um let's get rid of a lot of the carpeting in there. My wife my wife mentions that to me frequently and she doesn't even go to the marsh. Um and uh um but you know we've got carpeting in um in locker rooms. We've got carpeting in activity rooms. probably not um you know probably if we were doing it over again we probably wouldn't choose carpeting but but you know I think I think we have to kind of go with the lowcost options and and I would put Williston you know we didn't up we didn't renovate Willist that long ago and if why was that plan okay then and not now is kind of my rhetorical question. So, so I would prioritize, you know, we Glen Lake is done. We've got the money in the CIP. Um, for for other reasons, the community center, I think, should be the should get the primary attention. I think the marsh should be upgraded. But I would go with I agree with um with Kimberly. I think option one for the marsh given the change in our financial outlook 25 versus 24, we're going to have to make some tough decisions. I would prioritize that way. And then I would say, you know what, let's uh let's do as little as we can with Williston and take another look in five years would be kind of my recommendation. Very austere, cheap. I mean, as cheap as we can go plan, but I those are my priorities. So, a few thoughts. Now, you heard from different things from different people. You'd like a little bit more consensus on that. So, I don't know, council, what do you think of the various options we picked around? And Brad, if I maybe could just maybe say a couple things before we continue. Um, one again I what we tried to do this evening is with this first part of tonight's conversation is as Kelly and has already mentioned, Sarah's already mentioned just a refresh. And so part of um I think a lot of comments you're getting into now. I would encourage you to hold off on that because as we get into the next part of the presentation, some of this may become clearer for you because we do have some slides that are coming up that really kind of dive a little deeper in into this. Okay, good. really kind of the nature of this question was all things considered equal if money kind of wasn't the option kind of reaffirming reaffirming where you are our next kind of step in this discussion let's answer that question deeper let's just quick did we like where we were I mean what does everyone yes yeah I mean I thought we made good decisions yeah money was taken off the table let's do this we didn't know that money was no option g like to look at your that's what I thought about a lot is that we've got three different buildings here that we're upkeep you know doing upkeep on whereas you know what we would be better looking long term is enlarging this building and trying to encompass at least the functions of of community center and and here in the long term I think that's but I know I'm not signing up for throwing anything away yet but I think long long term okay I don't know are we helping you we're not trying Does that help? I think so. If I re So maybe I think from a staff perspective, if I reframe the question, if money was no object and where you are you similar to where you are today as you were a year ago, I think you're I mean, if money was no option, I'd be all in even with the pavilion, but money is an option is is is is definitely a problem. Yeah. And absolutely. I think and not to not to diminish anything about what you're saying with the economy and our ability to watch over and be stewards of taxpayer money. I think really what we want to get a sense from you is are these still kind of the priorities? I hear for the most part yes with caveats of course. And I think as we get into the next um ne next part of the discussion, we'll start to flush out a little bit of this. And I think it'll that will be I think an opportunity for you to then maybe repeat some of the things you've just said under a different set of um conditions conditions because I think as we as Darren and I want to do is now start to walk you through some of the budget conditions, some of the um considerations for funding sources, lay out some options and and talk about what that could look like. Then I think it might become clear in that conversation where your priorities land. I think you've already said them here, but I would maybe to um short circuit that conversation for now as we kind of get as we get into the other uh parts of our of our presentation this evening. All right. So, thanks Mike. So, council, that's kind of on this item that's speak now or forever hold your peace. Is there anyone um with any additions to what's been said before we move on to the next part? I loved all the comments. I think you make some good points, Mayor. This has been extremely helpful and I you know I think as if I can and start to now transition. You let me know when you're ready to transition and we'll transition there. Well, I think I'm ready. The the only other thing I would like and I don't want to cause staff too much heartburn, but we are two years into the marsh and I would appreciate kind of a highlevel financial review of where we are from a revenue and expense perspective. we're doing better than we originally projected, but I I really haven't seen any performance or perform, you know, two years in maybe a financial report on where our money's coming from, you know, what are the sources revenue, how does that compare with our costs, um based on, you know, a reasonable projection when we would we anticipate getting to that break even point? um ideas you have for speeding that up or you know staff professional judgment on you know where we stand on the financial performance of the marsh. I think that would benefit us in terms of um making good decisions as we look forward. So I throw that out as a request and um sorry mayor that this was sent to the council in a Friday update a couple months ago. So we did an unawited financial perform so it was in a Friday update. we can resend that to the council. Well, I can find it, too. But, but yeah, I think I mean I think that's I think that's important. Um, you know, and worth a worth worth a conversation at some point. So, and and that is so we with with our budget process and we'll cover the timelines coming up. Um, so with the Marsh, yes, we we can resend the performance that way you see it because we do have the it's unudedited. Um, and so we want to make sure we got those numbers to you before the audit was complete. Yep. Cuz the audit doesn't come to you until June. June. So, we get into June before you get the true audited numbers, but we want to give you unodudited numbers. So, I think we sent that out to you in February um in a in a Friday update where we send that to you. Um and then looking forward the rest of the year, you will have the audited numbers coming up in June on the Marsh. And then later in the year when we get into the um special revenue accounts, special revenue like we'll have the marsh and we'll have Glen Lake Glen Lake, we'll have marsh ice ranks, we'll have the marina. So all that comes through later this year, but yes, we'll certainly want to make sure we get that covered. Absolutely. All right. Thank you. Anything else, council? Okay, we'll call this a transition time. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. And so I think that part of the segue into this piece of then is our budget kickoff. And this is something that we started as you know a couple years ago. I think before we did the budget kickoff, your first um look at the budget was usually in June or August. It's usually a couple months later, but we did this as a way for you to provide feedback to staff before we got deeper into the budget. Um, so tonight it's laid out a little differently from probably the last two years that that you've seen because really I think I mentioned this to all of you on the phone uh as we spoke is the we're in a period of time where we've got a lot of capital needs in the sense of our facilities. Um, again, you heard from Chief Fox and the assistant chiefs at our last study session about our fire stations, stations 2, three, four, five. We've now got a refresh tonight on the wreck facility needs and opus. And so when you look at all those needs and we've got a couple slides coming up on that because really this is a it's a long-term planning exercise and I think I think council member Romely mentioned earlier there's no final decisions tonight or are there decisions being finalized tonight? No, this is this is the beginning of long-term planning. So, that's how I'd like to tee it up is thinking about long-term planning as it relates to these facilities because there's a lot of dollars on the table. Uh, you as a council and we as staff working as a team on looking at what is our long-term strategy in terms of these facilities, how will they get funded, when they could get funded, what are the impacts of different funding mechanisms. We're going to start walking through that tonight. So tonight, think of it as the beginning chapter one of the book and throughout this year as we continue to pull a lot of numbers together, these will probably all change from conversation to conversation. Uh so just keep that in mind. This is a really fluid conversation. Um so appreciate all the comments to this point. Uh just as we move into the next slide, get the clicker. Got it. Thank you, Darren. So discussion questions that we teed up for you and really kind of think about these because we'll ask you these at the end. The first question, does the council have priorities to be considered for 2026 including but not limited to operations, programming, and capital improvements? So that first question, set the facilities aside because that's in question three. And so as we get into really the the heart and soul of our tax levy, as you know, they are there are three funding sources for our tax levy. It's capital, debt, and uh operations. And so capital, debt, operations. So when you think about capital, debt, and operations, are there any priorities that you want us to be considered or you want considered for 2026? Question two is from the community and business survey results. Are there any matters that should be considered in the 2026 budget? Really t and we included those in your packet. So you did have those community survey results, the business survey results. Now is a good time to revisit those and if there's anything in those results that should be considered in our budgeting process. We'd want to understand that this evening. And then third, um really this is then the segue um from earlier conversation on regarding facility improvements. Are there specific projects the city should consider as the highest priority? If yes, are there preferred preferred financing methods, time frames, or other prioritization that should be considered? So, you'll get a sense of that as we lay out these slides uh to help answer question three, really start to again flush that out um in this process. And the way I would describe the budget process is we start out here wide, right? We start out wide. We're painting a broader brush tonight and then with every discussion, every study session coming up, we keep filtering it down to get to kind of that final that final place. So really kind of approach tonight is again your first your first discussion on it. Uh and things you might say today might change uh at the next meeting or the next conversation just depending on new information um that comes forward because with the budget process, it's a lot of numbers. There's a lot of spreadsheets, a lot of moving parts uh as we pull all this together um in this process. So, with that, um, Darren and I will tag team this a little bit. Um, so you'll see us bouncing back and forth between the slides. Uh, with that, Darren, you want to start us off with the timeline? Yep. Absolutely. Mayor, council members. Um, just want to reiterate, this is something you've seen multiple times on that end, but just kind of want to go over the quickly the timeline of where we're at. Um, this is the kind of the official kickoff, but we've had meetings up until this point already that kind of kicked off the buckle already. So, we had director presentations back in March, which aren't on this. We had a community and business survey. um a couple weeks ago on that end of it. We have the CIP study session coming up here in June. Um so we're getting that prepared getting that in a good spot and then um we'll have in August we'll have a study session specifically related to the operating u operational side of things, general fund, tax levy, those types of things. So all our discussion here tonight along with the CIP all helps kind of size that and kind of narrow it down as we kind of funnel things into the year on that end of it. And then we go into September is when we approve the preliminary levy and we work on the detail line items after that. And then in November we'll have another study session talk about enterprise funds, some of our our utilities, those types of things and review of the the full draft budget at that point in time before approval in December at that point in time. So um it's a year-long process it seems like. So um so looking at the the strategic plan and as it relates to um the budget um one of our strategic priorities is financial strength and so there are three desired outcomes with that um strategic priority and the first one is to improve alignment between service expenditures and identify priorities and that really relates to we talked about program budgeting really trying to com identify the programs and priorities that um are helping lift the strategic plan as we as we kind of over these next three years on that end of it such really focus our efforts on those items that are driving the strategic plan. Um our second item desired outcome there is to expand sources of revenue for the capital improvement projects. Obviously we talked about lots of projects tonight looking for revenue sources there. We've been um hitting grants really heavy the last number of years on that end of it as well too. That helps both the capital and the operational side of things as well there too. And then our third one is the high level creditworthiness which end of the budget kind of obviously steers that as well too. And so um one of our action steps under high level creditworthiness is to maintain Moody's fund balance is there our action step is we always want to kind of maintain that AAA bond rating. And so our action step is to maintain Moody's fund balance rate of very strong. And so, um, in order to do that, Movies has was looking at it today, they have about a a 75page document on how to how the all their credit scoring really relates and such like that. And so, we have bits and pieces of that. Um, we can impact some of it. Um, some of it is out of our control. So, there are kind of three three areas, three or four areas that Moody's looked at when they were doing your rating. So, they look at your financial performance, so that's 30% of your rating. They look at the economy and that's another 30% of your rating and those are items that are kind of out of our out of our control. So that's resident income um full value per capita economic growth those types of things that are we have a little bit of control on that but generally it's just how healthy is your how healthy is your local economy on that end of it. And then we look at institutional framework um which is a kind of a 10% piece and that is really related to just the nature of your operations. Are we able to levy dollars without restrictions per se? So, do we have state imposed levy restrictions in place? Currently, we do not. So, we have a little bit more flexibility than um say years or institutions that are restricted by other outside agencies on on that end of it and such like that. So, we're sitting in a good spot on that end of it. And then the fourth piece there is the leverage piece of it and that really relates back to where are our fund balance levels at? how much um are we able to leverage those dollars to help um help our expenditures through the next year on that end of it and such like that. So um number of things that go into it and we do have a few things in in Vizio as well too. We have some charts and graphs as well too. And I'll just quickly go into those just to give you a quick overview of some of the metrics that kind of help us um kind of track that make sure that we're reaching our desired outcome of maintaining that AAA bond rating. And this is a little bit small kind of small um very small I can't read it from here. U so the upper the upper left one is the net governmental fund balance percentages of revenue. Oh, like each one of them, right? Is that right? Yeah. Right here. Yep. So, I'll just quickly go through each one of these. It's a little better. The font can change, but the chart got bigger. Uh, so this is the our net governmental fund balance percentage of our revenues. This measures how much where our revenues are at compared to our fund balance. And so, we are sitting at like 145%. um anything greater than 30% is very strong and so we have um solid fund balances across our organization. So we're really sitting in a strong position. Part of that is due to um we have our community investment fund that we've had for many many years on that end of it that we utilize to pay for public improvements um throughout the years on that end of it. That's got a balance in there of $20 million or so. Um, and that is really shows up as governmental funds balance as available cash in order to come to fruition on that. So, news looks at that and says there's an extra $20 million that most cities don't necessarily have. So, that helps us with that percentage on that end of it and such. How do I get back then? Um, our taxable market value. Um, we've seen that in in the assessment report as well too. Um that's I can't read those numbers whatsoever from here. So um but it is obviously it's trending in the right direction on that and this is just through 2023. Don't have 2024 and 2025 numbers in here loaded yet. We'll get those loaded for the second quarter um and busy reports on on that end of it. So this is probably that year that we saw the big increases a few years ago with um residential markets on on that end of it and such. Um and then um net direct debt as percentage of taxable market value. So we have really very little net direct debt. And so that mainly the item looked at here would probably be our public safety facility bond because that was just a general geo bond supported by property taxes. It doesn't take into consideration our water and sewer utility bonds that are um supported mainly by user fees or primarily by user fees and backed by the the GOP piece of that. But um so basically we have that that bond there and then we have a little bit left on a park and uh park improvement bond from uh 25th 2016 that we issued on that end. And there again here's our net direct debt is that that 28 million that's basically that public safety facility and that small park improvement bond. So Darren, you want to go to the net the net direct debt? You want to blow that one up the other one. And and so why why this is an important graph because as again we talk about debt service and we take a look at the city's debt and how Moody's looks at our debt and how that's considered into our financial strength. The reason we point this out to you there's there's a target line that red line and you want to be under that. So the point of showing this is that as Darren mentioned you have we have very little debt as a city in terms of general obligation debt. It really goes back to our public safety facilities. So as now thinking about our conversation that's we've had and will come up regarding facilities. We have capacity. We have ability to take on debt. Not that we need to or should, but just really making you aware making sure that you're aware that from a data standpoint, we have ability to issue debt without negatively impacting our bond rating or the city's fiscal health. Absolutely. All right. Just a quick question for clarity. So let let's let's blow that one back up again. Um so the dotted line pertains the red dotted line pertains to the green line here. So we're below that. So then the fact that the blue line is really just the the red line has nothing to do with the blue line. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Okay. It kind of over it over Yeah. That's a good question, Brad, that it overlays the previous graph that Darren had pulled up on our taxable market value and how that relates to your current debt. And there's a ratio in there. Yeah. So, it's showing the the tax the blue line is the taxable market value. The green line is the debt and then you get this ratio. And so, the ratio is where you want to be underneath that, which is that green line. The green line represents the ratio. Yeah. So, even if your blue line, say your blue line stayed flat or it went negative, Yeah. Yeah, that green line would then go inversely the opposite direction. We get up closer to the going towards the red line on that end. So my mind just goes to see why are we above the red line. That's where my mind goes. That's I wanted to clarify that that issue. Very good question. I'm glad you did. I appreciate it. We're the higher the blue line goes the better. Yeah, absolutely. All right. So again, part of us showing you these this data is to I mean I know where we talked about budgets are always hard but yet at this but I also just want to make sure that you're also understanding the fuller breadth of the picture and that is financial health is important to the city and we are in a good position. So we're still very good in a great position as a city given even all the challenges we talked about. Yeah. Yeah. Very good. So another part of that um strategic plan on the financial strength is kind of our grant tracker spreadsheet that we've kind of come that Sissa has developed over the last number of months on that end as well too. So she'll give a little brief overview of that one as well and some of how those grants both operationally and capital have impacted for the better us on that end of it. So, this is the same dashboard you saw a couple months ago, but we did filter it to only show grants that are occurring in 2024 and 2025. Um, so grants by status, we've been awarded 18, two are pending that have been submitted and eight were denied. And you can see it filtered by department. Um obviously police has quite a few and so does public works for 2024 and same for 2025. This is in dollar amounts. You can see the total that we have been awarded the city match awarded and then the combined total between those two. And this includes all of them including the ones that were submitted and denied. And if we keep going down, you can see different type of revenue sources. So, federal funding, state funding, local, private, nonprofit, this shows how it applies to the strategic plan. Um, so financial strength, there's none. Safe and healthy community, there's quite a few, especially in 2024. infrastructure asset management, livable livable and well planned development, sustainability, and then community inclusiveness. And then this is a new area we added. So within our 2024 and 2025 grants, staff selected whether those grants are at high risk for funding, moderate risk or low risk. So these are the So we don't have any in the high risk category. We have some in moderate risk and low risk. And those are the numbers that affected. And this is the number of grants. And if we keep going down, this shows all those grants by the line items. Are there specific questions? Darren, do you want to add anything? No, I think that I mean this is great. It shows kind of directly how it relates to our strategic plan on that end of it. We have a lot of a good mix of operating and capital pieces of it. Police department's got a you know has a lot of patrol pieces of that DWI enforcement, those types of things that have helped um you know impact our public safety plan implementation um capital pieces of it with streets and and and things like that with the trail funding, trail expansion, that type of thing that really helped crossroad trail that leverage those dollars greatly on that one. I wish every trail could be that that way, but um it's a good it's a good overview of kind of seeing what um the positive impact that grants have had and and hopefully we are minimizing our risk moving forward as well too with both the state and federal level on that end of it with budgets up in the air. So we we don't hold it against you Darren that there's no finance I can't imagine the grants out there for Yeah. Oh, I was just wondering what the risk factors when you say risk, high risk, moderate risk, low risk, what goes into that calculation. So, we kind of asked each each department, each um area that about their grant specifically, what they're hearing, what they're seeing, what they know about, what are those risk factors, and they in terms of whether it's going to happen or not. Yeah. whether or not they're either, you know, if they're going to get pulled or if they're going to get awarded or if they're, you know, what the status of that is. So there isn't necessarily any certain criteria other than I think it's more of a a feel for each of those grant. So does that take sorry just a followup does that take into account like federal grants that might trickle like state funding that relies on federal funding first that does also take that into consider? Right. Absolutely. So we get a lot of our federal funding abs absolutely comes through the state level first especially transportation right okay so none of our transportation yeah we would have talked to engineering and public works about about those and they would have had better insight as to whether okay what category they would place it because I remember chief fox saying something about firefighting um training um federal grant at risk but happy to see that that was actually reinstated over the weekend the administration announced that so that was I don't know if that what came into this at all, but um it it was kind of a bit of good news. I heard it and I was like, "Oh, good." Um you know, our firefighters are going to be able to train again and those grants have been reinstated. Absolutely. And yeah, not to I think Darren Darren answered it very well and so did Sarissa. First, I just back up and say Sarissa's done a really nice job working with our directors to really pull this together. We continue to refine it. Again, as Darren mentioned, this is one of our strategic outcomes is to look at other revenue sources. And it is it is frankly a bit subjective. Yeah. In terms, medium, and low risk factors. Subjective in the sense of our directors looked at, right, do we can we apply for this grant? Are we eligible for this grant? Was it a grant funding that was available last year? Now it's no longer available. So, it's just kind of again kind of subjective in terms of where we look at where we can apply grants and really kind of using our best estimate on how risky it is at this point because we're getting asked I know you're asking us as staff um do we have risks on federal grants and state grants. This kind of tells us that um you know like the League of Minnesota cities has reached out to cities asking they want to know what how cities are being impacted. And I think the forake you're seeing here pretty minimally right now based on on what's happening at the federal and state level. Not without some risk, but certainly nothing much in the high-risisk categories. And and if you don't mind, I I have a related risk because over the last several years, we've to different degrees we've heard about I I believe it's a federal grant, the safer grant, you know, for firefighters. And we talk less about that these days. And we know that we didn't receive the grant for a couple years in a row, but I don't think it's, you know, one, I don't even know if the safer grant is on this list. And if it is, where did we um where would it be categorized? Because to me, based on the experience we've had, it's it's a we we know communities in our state, in our region that have been granted the safer grant, but it it also looks like it's a big grant with that seems to be a pretty long putt for us for whatever reasons. So, would we consider that high risk or medium risk or low risk? Chief Fox. Yeah. So, the last two years we did apply for safer. Um, we did apply for it this year again, but it didn't open. Um, okay. We're still, that's one of the ones impacted uh at the federal level. We're unsure if it is going to open this year, but the grant's been written and it's ready to be submitted. Uh should it open? As we've moved through the public safety master plan, we continue to alter what we ask for in the grant. I think uh the last two years we were the first year we asked for 16. Last year we asked for 12. The one we uh filled out for this year is for nine. Okay. And we're pretty much in limbo right now until we figure out if you're going to open it this year or not. But it's it's still one of our high priority ones. Yeah. Well, thanks very much for that. One quick question. Yep. Absolutely. Um and the ones that are identified at are grants that have been we've received but were question so if they're on that for high medium or no risk low risk it's money that we did receive haven't maybe received yet and wanted to know are we going to lose it is that right um I guess it depends on how staff insert it depends how staff filled it out Okay, I think we can take a look. Um, I don't know that we I don't know if I want to go on record of stating that we have any grants that are going to be necessarily taken away. Um, I don't know that we got a lot that are in those kind of high-risisk categories that way. Um, I think a lot of them that are awarded are they're awarded meaning that we should high probability of receiving those funds that we and we we always do our grants basically on a reimbursement basis anyway. So we'd have to incur the expense and then not get a word of the the money would be not good on that that end of it. So I don't know that we have much in that that category might be more so on funding like say we have a grant this year maybe it doesn't go next year or something of that nature in that end of it. So it might be an operational something that's in place in a similar to the firefighting training or something of that nature where it's we've been giving it routinely and now all of a sudden that routine stops that might be more so the the risk of some of those dollars there. Thank you. Anything else? All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Moving on. So really kind of you see these first slides are more setting some foundational um aspects of tonight's conversation or continued conversation just to recap where we are this year. So 2025 I always um start off in the middle with where taxes go and property taxes again go one of three places or you know one two or three places. It's capital, it's operations and its debt. Again, those are our three buckets, if you will, where we levy for taxes with uh property taxes in 2025. This year, going to this year, so rewind the clock to December of 2024, the levy that was approved was 7.23%. Uh, breaking that down, u skip over general operations and start with the public safety master plan. So, we have a 5-year strategy in place for public safety. For 2025, that was 2.25% and then for operations was 4.98%. So, really when you look at our levy, it fell really within operations and then the public safety investment uh general fund operations. We'll we'll kind of go through what that looks like. A lot of it was really what we call business as usual. like it was really funding salaries, benefits. We certainly had some unfunded mandates in that. Uh there were there were really no new programming added in 2025. And again, we'll touch on and Darren's going to touch on in the coming slides what 2026 is going to look like potentially today. Uh and then our outlier years when you break down then that left hand side when you look at the pi graph, we break down those three components. 78% of our levy is dedicated to operations, 18% for capital, and then 4% for debt. Um, one on the lower right hand side, just to put everything into context, 1% of our levy represents 514,000. So, contextualize that again as we move through the levy of what 1% represents again is about that 514,000. As I I'm going to hand it over to Darren in these next couple slides. And I really to me this is the kind of really the backbone of what we're doing and that is our financial management plan. I'm gonna proceed to the next slide Darren. It's our well it's our financial management plan which is going to talk about in the next couple slides. Really spending a lot of emphasis on these three buckets. I know there this isn't your packet. It's a large spreadsheet a lot of numbers and really what Darren and our team is doing is taking a look at all of those moving pieces uh related to capital operations and debt. We do some forecasting. We make some assumptions in all of that and really try to then estimate what the future years look like. Um, again, it's it's not an exact science, but based on experience, based on how we on how we do these projections, it's painted a pretty accurate picture. And again, we'll we'll take a look at that as well. So, I really wanted to say appreciate Darren and our team's efforts as we look at really the long-term financial health, if you will, of the city, our long-term needs of the city. And going back to one of the questions that we teed up at the beginning, question three is where does then facilities fit into all of this and and that's all coming up. So that Darren, you want to talk a little bit about what's in the financial management plan, what's in our budget, what's not included, and we'll again continue to go from there and build. Yeah, absolutely. And so the next slide after this, we'll go and go through that financial management plan that was in the in your council packet. And I know that's confusing to look at and there's a lot of information on there. Lots of numbers, lots of lines, colors, all nine yards. um we'll kind of go through it and try to hopefully break it down and and make it um somewhat um easier to kind of understand and simplify in that end of it. But um we do look at this uh it's me and Joel look at this on a daily basis. We kind of dream about it sometimes. It's lucky you. Yeah, lucky us. Um yeah, and so uh when we're looking at this, there are a number of um items that go into this. Obviously, we're looking at our revenues and we'll do a deep dive. And so this is preliminary. So, this changes, this plan changes on a day-to-day, hour-to-our basis on that end of it. So, we're looking this at we're looking this at at May 12th. And, um, we haven't done a true deep dive into our revenue estimates for 2026 yet. We're just kind of going off on a historical numbers at this point, anything that we know from trends wise that we're going to see happen on the revenue side of things until we get directors and other staff looking at really in depth what's going to happen there. So, then we make other assumptions on personnel. we know um kind of historically what's happened there and then we look also look at um the capital forecast as well too. We're working on the CIPs and so we're kind of kind of massaging all these numbers to try and make things kind of fit and feel like there's a comfortable number there that I feel somewhat comfortable with um bringing forward at this point in time um such like that. So when we get to other projections, do we have onetime costs that are going to be in this financial management plan? Specifically the public safety um operational side of things. Nothing to do with capital for public facilities for public safety facilities or recreational facilities at this point in time too. So so we'll kind of take some time to go through this. Um and really we kind of focus I'll just go quickly across the top columns here just to give you what's there. So 2024 is actual. So that's as of kind of fi the first part of May here as as the financial statements are still being finalized for our audit, but that's as close as I think we're probably going to get at this point in time. Then the 2025 budget is what was approved um last December. And then we're looking at 2026 is the proposed column that we kind of focus on along with looking out at the next four years 27 through 29 and trying to make sure that things stay somewhat level. We don't like to see big spikes in the levy from one year to the next on that end of it. We like to try to moderate things. Um that is kind of been a goal of ours and we try to stay true to that. And so when we focus on the 2026 column and we go down across the top here. So this is the general fund. This first um twothirds of this page or three4s of this page is really general fund. The top half here is property taxes. So we or the top half is the revenues I should say and the first line is property taxes. So this 45 million I can't click on it. Um $45 million 45,500,000 is property taxes for the general fund. And that's really a calculation that gets plugged in there based off of our other revenues and our expenditure estimates at this point in time. Our other revenues in there are licenses improvements in our governmental revenue which would include a lot of our grants transfers. um other revenue which would be interest revenue um recreation recreation fees charges for services all those types of things go into that revenue estimate and then we have our expenditures following down through this um based off of pro programmatic areas. So general services, public safety, public works, community development, those types of things on that end of it and those are really kind of built off at this point in time. um basically inflationary escalations based off the 2025 budget at this point in time. Assuming everything stays the same, we would assume that there's going to be increases in personnel. We're 75% we're a service organization. 75% of our costs are personnel. We're likely going to see increases in person in wages and in health insurance, those types of things on that end of it. So that's where we build into the expenditure side of it. Um we have some trans capital transfers out. So, if you remember last year's budget, we talked about our our our surplus available in the general fund that we were able to transfer out to the other capital funds that that was diminishing that we didn't have a whole lot left of excess funds there. Uh 2024 ended up being a a pretty a good year on that end. We had some really good building permit revenues, other revenues we had were really good as well. We had some investment interest um numbers were up, those types of things. our expenditures came in at or below budget on that end of it. So, we ended up having a positive fund balance there that allowed us to now allocate excess fund balance from 2024 out through um 2026 through 2028ish I think I have or even 2029 at this point in time. So, um that helped kind of massage those levies in the out years especially for 2026 and and 2027 on that bit. So, as you can see, for 2026, we're estimating $2.5 million. And if I look back at last year, I bet we only had half a million maybe or three4 300 or $750,000 um in that line item. So, that's helped reduce the 2026 levy directly at this point in time. And so, you can see if I skip over here to the 24 column, we can see that we have at the end of 24, we're going to have 40 48.8% 8% fund balance, which means our um our expenditures for next year, we have enough revenues to cover 48.8% of those. And so, anything over 40%, we can allocate that out to the future years for one-time projects, which are in our capital CIP type of type of items on that end of it. Can you remind us what that kind of goal percentage is where? So, we would like to say right around it's 30 to 50% is kind of your goal for a fund balance. And I I don't have the policy right off hand, but I know that that's usually the range. It's 35 to 30 to 30% to 45%, 50% somewhere in that ballpark. Um, and so that 40% is kind of that sweet spot where we want to kind of target um to be at because then we don't necessarily have any access to transfer to other funds, but we're sitting at a good spot to to maintain that. So, uh, when we look at the 2026 budget, we're looking at likely coming in right at that right right around that 40% range on this point in time. So, um, some of our assumptions with wages, benefits, and other costs, we're looking at, um, a 3% increase for wages, benefits, and market adjustments. Those are health insurance, um, market adjustments for any wage adjustments on that end of it. % and then kind of our other services and charges that other 25% we're going to throw in a half a percent um on top in there to account for increases there which isn't much but um I think we did allocate 1% or maybe even 2% last year something of that nature I think might 1% we've been at a half a percent for many years on on that end of it so just a quick question the 40% number um for um fund balances is partially reflective of when, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is, you know, we're all our property tax are due May 15th and October 15th and city cash flow is based upon when property tax are paid. So we we basically have to have enough fund balance to run the city um until we get paid right after May 15th and October 15th. And so the fund balances are essential with to operate the city without going taking on debt. Is that a fair statement? Absolutely. That's that's the theory behind that as well. Absolutely. So, we get our taxes. We'll get an advance on our first half taxes June 20th. Then we'll get the final distribution of that first half in 1 of July. So, we need basically six months, five and a half months of cash flow to help us pay our bills and get through that first five and a half months of the year. And at the end of the year where our balance is high, we get the second half of the taxes right in December. And so, we have lots of cash on hand right at the end of our fiscal year. Whereas you look at a school district, their fiscal year is June 30th. Um they may not sometimes they have their fund balances are really low. They may not get that distribution until that July time frame on that end of it. So it's kind of a timing thing for for everybody. But um for us, yeah, we get a big cash inflow rate at the end of the year. So our cash our fund balances are higher than um but we still need that then for the upcoming year to pay for our bills going forward. Thank you. Yeah, like these this is a snapshot of one day in time and so right one day in time on December 31st we have a really healthy fund balance which you need like you just point out Brad and you you do that snapshot on May 30 May 30th that's a much that's much lower number because you're using those res those reserves to pay for expenditures absolutely so there's kind of our assumptions for the inflators above for the expenditure side of it that 3% for wages that five and a half% total on the on the numbers above there. Um, so that's kind of the general fund overview of how we're kind of forecast where we're sitting at at the moment moving forward. And so there are other items that are that do impact the tax levy. And so this year I've done this a little bit differently. I split out um our special revenue funds which is the ice arena and the marsh. Um, historically over the last many years, we have been transferring an operational transfer to the ice arena from the general fund. Um, which is basically tax money. It just we're taking it in one fund and moving it over to the other. And so with the Marsh piece of that there now, I'm like, well, let's let's call it out kind of as it is and isolate what that these are tax levies. They're in special revenue funds. They can have a tax levy. Um, that's not an issue there. And so we have $100,000 for the ice arena and then we have the $350,000 for the March. And that's just projected out over the next five years. Obviously, we don't know what the assumptions are for the out years. We're mainly looking at the first year of of that for 2026. And we'll play it by ear as as things progress there. The next grouping is the capital project fund levies. And so I'm going to skip to the next page here. This just lists so touchy. This just lists them out um by individual fund. And then you get your total capital project funds here at the very top is $9.3 million. So if you would have looked at um in the report I mentioned that last year's assumptions the levy was built off of like a $500,000 increase in the CIP when we were doing the 2025 levy. We were projecting 2026 would have a CIP restoration of additional 500,000. So here you can see that actually the levy is decreasing by almost $500,000 from 25 to 26 and that is directly related to those capital those surplus transfers that were able to transfer over to the CIP funds from the general fund from that excess revenue that was available or excess revenues over expenditures at that point in time. So that's kind of helped levy that out or level that out a little bit. Obviously, there are a little bit steeper increases in the outy years on on the CIP um because they are one-time fundings. Um but we we do look at this on a annual basis as well too and kind of adjust those transfers as we need to um make the the the more current years or closer future years a little bit more palatable than than the far out years on that end of it. But it's still something we keep on on our horizon. Then as we go down here, um this next section is kind of one-time items or new items or or funding items that are going to impact the budget um coming moving forward. I should qualify that that these first two next two items are our debt service. So this is the debt service piece that Mike was talking about that 4% piece of it. We got park bond debt service levy of $289,000 and this will be our last year of levying that. that bond will be paid off in 2027, collect in 26, pay in 27, and then we will just have the um public safety facility uh to pay for after that. You can kind of see that the debt service amounts kick up in 2027 and that was done knowing that this park bomb was going to be paid off in 26. So those excess dollars then debt service levy will stay flat. Additional dollars will go towards the public safety facility in the future. um abatements and cancellations. Um we take into account that this is an item that we've always had in the general fund and take into account any um tax court petitions that are out there. So we have uh some big commercial properties that petition their taxes or and such like that. And we have uh have to refund taxes. This accounts for some potential loss on that end of it. So we budget um about $176,000 a year on that end of it. um which is nice to have that in there especially in this day and age with um more vacant commercial property and and values being contested on that end of it and such. Ridgedale tax abatement that's an ongoing abatement that we've had um for Ridgedale improvements that were done probably number of years ago eight nine 10 years ago on that end of it that'll be going on for a while. Next year is a primary election cycle and so we have an additional $145,000 coming into the budget for 2026. the following year, we'll take those dollars out again. So, it kind of goes up and down based on if it's a general state election year or not. Oh, no. Okay. Um, next items where you got the red and the blue. So, represent police and fire. You did a very good job there. Very clever. Which is which? Never mind. Right. So, for this first one here, I got uh $773,000 for 2025 firefighters hired midyear. So, we are hiring nine firefighters July 1stish on that end of it. We funded half of those in 2025 and 2026. We'll still have to pay for the whole boatload of those. And so, that's going to cost us an additional $773,000. So, he made the he made the cons decision to to hire those mid year in 25. We need to fund those in 26 moving forward. And that is the same for this police officer here as well too. We had on the books to plan to hire one April 1st. And so we'll get a three additional months for next year as well. Um this isn't this next one is a DEI position as well too. That was a partial year higher there as well that came on April 1st. It this shouldn't say 2024. That's a a typo. Um a new item we have coming up in 26 is Minnesota paid leave. Um, so that's similar to a short-term disability, a sick leave piece of it that is um that was passed by the legislature a couple years ago that's going into effect on July January 1st. Um, our impact is about $132,000 hopefully. Um, that's given that's given a 50/50 split on employee employer um contributions on that end of it and such. So got a kind of a placeholder in place for that. And then we have um I don't have this one highlighted in blue and I probably should but it's 2026 police officer position. So last year we were trying to make the budget work. Um and police department has kind of the biggest has the biggest operating budget to get the most number of personnel that in place there. And so we had a number of open positions. And so talking with chief room and such like that we're like well I think we are able to hold that position in 26. Like we won't be able to fill that position likely in 2025. that position is still authorized, but we're just not going to fund it in 2025 knowing that even if all the stars align, all the moons align that we probably wouldn't be able to find enough personnel to actually fill all those all those positions. So, we so we held a position open unfunded basically, but authorized but unfunded in 25. And so, um here we're bringing it in back into the budget. Want to make sure that's accounted for. Uh we can talk more about that as the budget year progresses on that end of it. Such then we look at prosecution support. We are going to have a need and a request probably for some additional prosecution support kind of related to public safety master plan. They're adding more um patrol officers and such in on the street and things like that have resulted in higher case loads and more body camera video. All those types of things are adding to kind of the the workload within the legal department there and needing something there. The next one is the Axon which is related to the police department and um an agreement that we signed at the end of 2024 in regards to um public safety. What is that or our um uh software system? Bunch of software. It's about 18 different applications. Yeah, that's right. It's not just one. It's records management. It's it's many that we already had. We just cameras. It's all that. So, we consolidated and signed a 10-year agreement for flat payments over the next 10 years with Axon on that end of it. Last year, we paid for that or in 2025, we paid for that out of the CIP for the first year with the notion that we're going to bring that into the operation operational budget in 26 because it really is truly now an operational cost and not necessary a capital cost on on that end of it. So, that's bringing that into place. There are some additional costs. It's not flat across these five years here because there are some implementation costs that are in the out years, but um beyond 2030, it'll be at that $600,000 mark on that end of it. Compensation analysis. We got kind of a placeholder for that. We we've seen those across different grades and different markets that there's kind of a need for kind of looking at that on an annual basis to make sure that we're keeping all the all the positions comparable. Um, and then what else? H levies on here. That brings us down to our kind of total levy kind of before our public safety master plan, before implementing anything new for 2026. Obviously, we have our public safety master plan from items that were carried forward from 25 that need funding for 26. We're at 7.25%. And then if we look at our public safety master plan, we have zero in there for for fire. And I can have Chief Fox and Chief Borwood speak a little bit to their um kind of their plans here as we adjust these each and every year. So we look at these if you look at these this spreadsheet last year at this point in time, the numbers would be different than they are today. uh they each take a hard look at kind of what what's going on, what they're expecting um and and new innovative ways to to to get done what they need there. So, what we're looking at is in the police department is $150,000 and I believe that's for public community engagement officer position on that end of it. Um so, that brings us down to 7.52%. Um and there again, if you look at the blue and the red items, that adds up to 2.86%. So if you take that off the 7.52, you're in the you're in that four upper four type of range on that end of it and such. So that's kind of where we're at percentage-wise. If uh either the chiefs want to talk a little bit about um either the police and police or fire master plan plans coming up. Yeah, I can I can jump in and appreciate it. And good evening, mayor and council. We are a significant portion of the levy increase and I thought I know there's a lot of discussion throughout the year on on on the operating costs of police and fire, but I thought I'd give you a little bit of information tonight just so you can have a a larger picture of what we have going on. And and so the public safety master plan that was completed in 2003 included 59 key findings and 47 action items. And not all of those uh key findings required an increase to the budget. Many of them were non-budget items that we have since implemented. The ones that had a budget impact included increasing capacity in divisions such as our patrol division, our investigations, and community engagement efforts. And then also identifying technology that would make us more efficient. And this was done several years ago and each year we're seeing new technology evolve. And quite frankly, it's it's it's amazing. And uh as we enter year three of our our plan, we have already increased capacity control with additional staff and investigations. We have also implemented technology as Darren had mentioned with the Axon public safety suite and there are some uh recommendations that are to further consider and that includes two additional retail detectives assigned to the Ridgel area, two new officers assigned to a mental health response unit, a traffic officer which currently have funded through a state grant and hopefully we can continue that and then an additional community engagement officer. We do recognize the budget impact uh of staffing increases and the various competing priorities we all have. And each year we review our staffing study to see is this absolutely necessary because sometimes um you know it's it's nice to add staff but they come at significant cost. You have salary, you have benefits, they're ongoing costs, we have training and so we take that very seriously. And so we look at other alternatives to that. And so going into next year and beyond, we believe for the police that instead of funding two new police officers to create a mental health unit, these funds should be redirected to funding the additional firefighters. And we are already working closely with the fire department on enhancing our mental health response. We'll also continue to seek grants to maintain our traffic officer position. That's our DWI officer that's currently funded through the state. And then lastly, as I mentioned, in our in our uh public safety master plan, there is a recommendation to hire two additional retail detectives. And we have identified a hybrid model which we believe is cost-effective, intelligencedriven approach to retail crime. It includes a patrolbased response with our current patrol resources and then enhancing our technology. And this is done primarily through our drone program and our real time information center. And this technology we believe can also benefit other uh city operations such as fire and public works. And then I briefly mentioned these initiatives during our department presentation earlier this uh this year and I'm excited that we'll be coming to you next week to share more information about this exciting opportunity. So, I wanted to give you a little bit, but next week we have a full presentation on on what we believe will will be the um capstone of our public safety study and really eliminate the need to ask for any additional police officers. So, that's really all I had, but there's way more discussions to happen, but I just think it was important because we are like 2.2 some% of your levy. So, we wanted to share that with you. So, that's all I had. Um, yeah, we we're waiting with baited breath, so you know, we probably can't wait till the next week until the next meeting, but uh, deputy chief has his work cut out for him. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any council? Any questions for Chief Corbu? All right. Thanks, Kevin. Do you want to Chief Fox? Hi. Good evening. Uh, yeah. So if you remember in April at the study session, we presented the council with our service level objectives and the fire station analysis. And as we are moving into the third year of the public safety master plan, one of the things we wanted to really look at over the next couple years is not only what's going to happen with the facilities, but really how we're deploying our personnel and how it pertains with the uh mental health response that we're going to be taking on and the state of EMS. We're still unsure as to what's occurring with that. So, we didn't want to keep adding people just for the sake of adding people, even though it does help with that effective response force. We really want to take the time and be cognizant about how we're adding our personnel and how it's affecting those response times as well. So, we thought taking kind of a year off in 2026 with adding personnel is going to give us a little bit of time to kind of put some of these puzzle pieces into place and then see how the data plays out before we come with another request for personnel. So, we believe over the next, you know, 18 to 24 months, we should have a better idea of what our true needs are. And as part of the public safety master plan in our presentation was that we we did want to remain flexible in this. Even though it was laid out as a five-year plan, we knew in reality it was probably more of a in some cases a sevenyear or eight year plan. So that's where we're at today. Thanks, Chief. Um council any any comments? Well, go ahead. Sort of. Wow. Um, first of all, I just wanted to I mean, you know, I work for our capital city and just that collegiality of and the cooperation between our public safety folks is kind of astounding and very rare. So, it makes me a little furlant, I have to say. Um, and uh, you know, I just want to make sure always, always, always that you're not doing that because like we're feeling the heat. I think we all feel the heat. I always want to make sure that our fire and police have what they need. So, I mean, if something changes, um, you know, we can't we can't make the levy go up after we approve the preliminary in September, but let's make sure that we build in what we need to build in. in September. But thank you very much for being sensitive and thoughtful. Paula, just echoing that. Thank you for kind of willing to take a pause for a year and just analyze what's the public safety master plan and its effect thus far before going forward. I think it's it's just both wise and and and very considerate. you know, I'm sure Deb knows better than or council member Calbertt knows better than I that, you know, turf wars off and get fought and everybody wants, you know, their piece of the pie. So, for me, um, and rightly so, when this is such an important piece, but for you to, you guys step back and say, "Hey, we think we we really want to take this time to be thoughtful and analytical about what's working." It's like, and it's not just about the money. It's just the way you're thinking about like the the mental health of our community members and how we're responding to it. I mean, it's really Yeah. pretty impressive and astounding. So, um yeah, thank you both. Anything else wants to add? I'll just echo what was said and also, you know, I know that hiring and I was surprised to hear at at the banquet that even in the fireside hiring's gotten more challenging and I think doing this I it's so deliberate and it makes a lot of sense and it also I hope it takes some of the pressure off that idea of getting the numbers up just because you have the space and I Scott, you've been so great about making sure that you're hiring the right people and hopefully having some breathing room also helps do that as well. We can be we can keep our standards up. So, um maybe a silver lining to taking a deep breath. Anyone else? I'll just I'll just echo a couple of comments that were made. I mean, you know, I think I think we're looking at things in an innovative way. Um, and I think that, you know, mental health is such a big part of the public safety response these days. And and my takeaway is that we want to do it right. We don't need it's not a turf issue. It's how are we going to provide the the mental health support that our residents need and visitors to our community need. And and I think the approach that you're taking, you're the experts. I'm not, but one, I'm I really appreciate that. The other thing is I really appreciate the aspect of leveraging technology. I mean, we know how hard it is to recruit police officers and firefighters and and and personnel are so critical to what we do. But if there are ways to reduce that need through technology and leveraging technology, I I think that just that just really helps us in terms of both our effectiveness and and frankly cost management because while technology costs go up um um those drones don't uh they don't get benefits and they don't uh a lot of the things that drive our costs up that are part of the not controllable piece um you know that that solves for that to a certain degree. And so, you know, I really appreciate the innovation that we're we're taking to public safety. And, you know, you guys know what you're doing and I really appreciate it. And I think you guys work well together. And that's very refreshing because I can't tell you how many um cities and mayors and and uh city officials I talked to. And there's so much competition between police and fire that in some cases they've barely talked to one another. And and we do not have that problem here. And I and I'm really proud of that. And that's a real reflection on on both of the departments and the personnel we have leading them. So, thank you so much. And just clear the record. I wasn't talking about um turf in that sense. I was talking about every department thinks that what they're doing is like super important. It is. It is. It is. Yeah. And it is. and and for you guys to you know you all to kind of step back and say looking at it holistically and what the whole community needs I think is what I was trying to say in terms of the appreciation well thanks well we we'll move on now but but thank you all right sounds good go ahead um I was just going to follow up I didn't mention the the outyear forecast and the on the levies here as well too you can see it towards the bottom here. Um 7.52 is the 2026 forecast at this point in time and then um it goes 8.39 7.93 so on and so forth on that end of it. Obviously we look to tweak those as we get closer to those on that end of it obviously but that's kind of where it's sitting at ballpark wise at this point in time. So then there's a public le public or the police and fire levy and tax are below there as well and then goes through 2029 at this point in time. So kind of extended one more year there. So So but for clarity the those two the the number the 8.39 and 2.12 though um that's in 27 and the 7.52 and the 2.86 for for 26 those are not additive. The 2.86 is this is included in the 7.52. And I think it's important for us to make sure we're clear on that. Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. Good point. All right. So I think I'm kicking it back to to Mike. Yeah, I'll have the next few slides. Darren, can you just back up one more time? I'm sure you're ready to move on from this from this slide, but just a couple more things to to point out again as you just mentioned, Brad. So 7.52. So a couple things again just to clarify. I think you've picked up on what we're saying of this. Again, the 7.52 the new monies in that is not 2.86%. it it's really limited to that 150,000 that Chief Borbon talked about. We got the was it the um the trailer uh to the new Will Faroh movie. So, we're going to have we got the setting up the meeting for next Monday. Well, the chief will bring forward um some discussion on some technology on how we can better um leverage ourselves. That'll be next Monday. And so, really this 2.86% the large piece of it again is up in the dollars that have been committed from last year's discussions. um in leading into paying for full personnel for this year. So, I just want to get make sure you're clear on that. Then the other thing um will Darren will point out a slide coming up just on these levy projections moving forward and then as we get into a few more slides these un uh these box up here that are yellow. And so we're going to then circle back at some point here coming up on if we were to do some sort of improvements to facilities, what does that look like and how might that impact a levy if you were to use general obligation debt? So we'll we'll walk through that. So we'll walk through filling in the this where it is blank now if you were to consider again some sort of general obligation debt for facilities. So keep that in mind as we get to the next slides. Okay. And then just one question is a small thing but we talked about it earlier. The Glen Lake activity center dollars are in the CIP. So they would not be additive whereas anything else the Marsh Williston the community center would be additive. Is that is that a correct? Right. So, in with the Glen Lake um as noted by Kelly and Sarah earlier that in the CIP and the next is it the next study session or the one coming up we have the CIP EIP you'll see that more specifically the skateboard park correct me if I'm wrong Kelly or ST like 800 to 900,000 somewhere in there I'm going off top memory here that total project 8 or 900,000 embedded in that capital improvement project is the demolition of the Glen Lake activity. So yes, I just I just want to be clear. Yeah. Okay. Um I I know we have a number of slides to get through and we're going to be targeting try to get done at 8:30. So I will try to pick up my pace here a little bit. Um again in the in your packet for tonight was the director presentations. Again we had the agenda that brought in public works. just really want to touch on some of the challenges and opportunities and rehighlight these for you because the reason we have directors point this out to you is that we want you as um staff for you to understand our opportunities as we see them the challenges that we see as staff. So then you have that understanding then as we approach the budget if there are anything in these that need to be reflected in the budget that we have that conversation as well. Again I won't go through every one of these bullet points. Um just a couple things that I would point out. Um we're going to jump down to climate action and adaptation. Miss Wishnack, I'll probably put her on the spot here. In terms of really one of the challenges there with our climate action and adaptation plan, we have a one position, our sustainability coordinator that manages all that activity. Uh it is um there is a work plan in place and so the sustainability commission does create a work plan that came to you earlier this year approved by the council. Uh, one of the challenges in that is we did lose our green core opportunity this year. That was an instrumental position in helping our activities surrounding sustainability. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, Julie? About 1,800 hours. Excuse me. That's my estimate. Yes. So, about 1,800 hours. We've had how many years of Marine Corps members here at the city. We're we're not able to have that program this year. Um, so it's a loss for us. Oh, sure. I can describe. Oh, sorry. If you're going to do your presentation, I'm just No, I don't have a presentation. I'll just answer the question. Um, so we apply We have to apply every season, if you will, for Green Cor. So, it's not a promise to the city. We've had them before. In sustainability specifically, we had two green core members. Not this past year, but the year before when we reapplied this year. We were told that there were 90 applications for 40 spots. We did not receive the funding or I shouldn't say that. We don't actually get money. We get people and time. Um the other thing is there's not really good information about whether or not the program is actually going to continue. So the Americanore right now is totally done. Uh it sounds like green core might get picked up by the state. Um they might provide some funding and so I don't know how that's going to land but they definitely said we were not in the running for members. So it does make it one person back long answer to the question. Sorry Mike. Thank you Julie. Yeah. So certainly a challenge for us this year that it puts just certainly a lot more pressure on one of our staff members to carry out fulfill the mission of our of our of our CAP plan. Uh some other things just worth noting here, opportunities. Again, Darren and I have talked about program based budgeting. We we do see that as an opportunity. That's something we're embarking on this year. Uh hopefully we'll see some opportunity that comes out of that process in terms of reallocating some dollars uh to fit needs. Uh increasing infrastructure costs and that that goes without saying just we see that reflective in our budgets. Um even in 2025's budget, as I alluded to earlier, just cost of business was almost 5% this year. And that's that we're seeing more of those same trends just with interest rates. Um so with kind to tariffs uh into play so ser um service delivery with receiving parts and supplies is still kind of a challenge. So certainly that's part of our operations we keep an eye on. I know we listed emerald ashbor there that's always with trees and dying trees lots of those in the community and and certainly we're doing our best to keep up with that. Uh noted on the right hand side is a little more public safety uh that you've heard about from our chiefs previously just with call volumes, overlapping calls, EMS and mental health response. Again, the chiefs have been addressing that here this evening. Uh looking at how we use technology. Again, the chief chief is coming forward with one of those solutions next Monday. Looking at different efficiencies certainly with Office 365 is another one here at the city just as we look to improve our technology. Uh, I would say just overall, and I kind of bounce back to that first bullet point, recruitment and retention, staying competitive has has been a challenge as with with the city, and we continue to invest in our staff, and it it still presents a challenge. Um, and we've been successful in keeping people and recruiting people, but nonetheless, it is certainly on our uh on our forefront. I would also say just work volumes, workload. We I I will say this all day long. I don't believe as a city we're overstaffed. Uh we we are busy. We I think our all of our staff, our directors would all say we there's not a shortage of work uh here at the city. I feel like being a city staffer, it it this year felt busy, you know, being in finance department. It just it feels different this year than it's felt. And certainly the the budget plays into this. How we balance our budget and and just recognizing a lot of these challenges. Uh we've implemented again more technologies. Axon's been a great uh tool for the for the police. Fire's also implemented some new uh technology as well for their their operations. I think Chief Fox has talked about that recently. Having a new dashboard, for example, is going to be coming online here very soon. So again, a lot lot of really cool things happening, but nonetheless, a lot of a lot of challenges. Uh looking long-term just some of those challenges and opportunities. Again, the public safety master plan and the funding that of the next few years, the future of EMS service delivery. I think Mayor Worson's been involved in some conversations and some of you as well just what that looks like long term with service delivery and response times and how does ambulance fit into all of it and so certainly that's on our radar. recreational facilities that we've talked about fire stations, we've talked about opus, we're going to be talking about implementation of the CAP uh is certainly a challenge again as we just talked about uh CIP as well and we'll get into our CIP coming up at one of our next study sessions just just keeping things going with a a levy that's really kind of flatlined with our CIP. And so again, just making sure we've got the money available with our equipment purchases and replacements and projects and road projects, all of that. still again very much a challenge then there our ERP and human capital management plans and so that still is something that we need to invest in. So lot lot of needs as we're as we're pointing out in challenges with with our operations with that I'm going to turn over to Darren just to we'll get through a few more slides here in data try to wrap it up quickly here mayor and council so that way we've got a a good half hour for for some conversation. Yep. Absolutely. And so here's a slide that you guys have seen all seen in the past. Um this is just updated the 2025 data on there now. Um just breaks down between the the capital operations and the debt service. The orange being the the operational side of things and then the the blue kind of being the the the CIP portion of that. Obviously the blue and the the debt are fairly constant from year to year and it's our operational piece of that that's kind of been expanding over the last number of last 10 years or so on that end of it. Um this one I wanted to look at um going back five years and looking forward then the next five years as well too and kind of showing um as Mike mentioned earlier kind of our our projections from last year at this point in time. Um and then our projections currently at this point in time and then this kind of overlaying it with the public safety master plan as well too. And so the uh orange line here is the actual levy through 2025 are actual levies over the course of that time. The blue line that you see from 26 through 29 would have been the projected levies this time last year minus the community facility improvements. So last year initially we had the community center not community center but community facility improvements budgeted as a as a debt service um capital levy last year at this point in time. Taking that out of the equation you can see that uh we would have had 8% 9.9 9.09 09 7.74 etc is our projections moving forward. Now we looking at the projections a year later we're at 7.52 8.39. So they've moderated slightly. They're still in basically the same same era or same geographic area as as they were last year at this point at that point. So, um, just kind of showing kind of those scenarios of of how we forecast that from year to year and then overlaying that obviously with the public safety master plan, account for those larger increases over that 24 through 20 29 time frame. Again, real quick, part part of that was I asked Darren, you know, rewind the clock this time last year, what did we project? How did we do what did we say this time last year and what are we saying now this year? And so, again, this is a fluid document. um we're slight we're projecting slightly better now than we were last year at this time. So again, we're kind of in a way holding ourselves accountable and looking at just how we're how we're forecasting and how we're projecting. So this is also the a graph here and you can see you'll see the spaghetti one next time, but this is our number of our comparable cities. It's probably a few more than what our truly our 10 comparable are. Um but these are a number of the cities that we compare ourselves to and that it shows that the last 20 years of tax levies and um you can see that the average aggregate increase over 20 years is 99%. So if you add it up every levy increase or every levy some of them are actually decreases. The act it would be 99% would be the average over that 20-year time frame. And that's what is indicated by that horizontal blue line going across there. Um, city of Minnitanka is just below that. We've been a couple years ago we were like dead on average. Um, we've actually dropped down below average a little bit over the last three years. We've been percent a percent and a half below kind of the average of these city's levy increases. Um, but you can see kind of where everybody is at. Um, obviously depends on every city's different. Um, lots of cities go up and down. We try to stay somewhat consistent from from year to year on that end of it, but not have big fluctuations in our our levies. And the next one kind of shows that shows that piece of it. Minnitanka is the thick blue line in here. Um that's really in the middle of of all those levy increases and we don't have the the high spikes from one year to the next. Um it's all the same data as the previous slide just in a different format on on that end of it. So as Darren mentioned, this is what we're trying to avoid. I don't I'm not going to point out the name of the city, but you see this city is just bouncing so up up and down with their levy. That's what we're trying to avoid uh through our through this planning effort is to be more more consistent from year to year. All right. Um just real quickly as a reminder of some of our survey results. Again, we're teeing all this up for you. Just a lot of data tonight. Kind of a big purge on you. And then we'll we'll end up with those questions here at the end. Just as a reminder with some of the relevant community survey results, um again I won't want to I won't spend much time here. There's question 29 just about would you consider the property tax you pay it's a quality of life question. So again as you as you remember uh our residents feel they get good value between excellent and good um almost 90 90 or 88% with value services. Question 30 was if you could increase the property tax levy which one of these major areas would you prioritize? Again this was kind of the equal distribution. So, we didn't get a clearcut answer in all that. So, more equal distribution between police, fire, streets, parks, trails. Um, question 31 is, would you favor or oppose an increase in your property taxes if it were needed to maintain maintain city services? 80% favor. Uh, what services would you be willing to cut and kind of across the board for the most part? Um, parks and trails got the biggest biggest one on that one at 33%. uh what do you like least about living in Minnetonka? Again, this is where we talk about this is where the taxes come up. This is where we see the the high taxes. So, I think that's what we're all trying to do is understand that high taxes an issue, but understanding that people are also willing to fund core services and raise taxes for core services. Uh moving on, just a couple other questions. Uh this one was about local option sales tax. So many the question was many cities in Minnesota have asked voters to approve a local sales tax to provide funding for capital improvements instead of a property tax increase. And so they the survey has read them a list which is items noted there in 33 through 38 of those items which one would you support a local sales tax or property tax for that purpose? So it's um so for example in 33 upgrades to the city fire stations 37% sales tax 40% property tax 21% neither. So you can go through those yourself and kind of see where they landed. Uh for the most part there is support um for for sales tax over a property tax and probably for the obvious obvious reason. The question then was followed up with down at the bottom. A sales tax increase would not only capture sales tax from city residents, but also from people outside the city who make purchases in Minnetonka. University of Minnesota study projected 54% of the new sales tax revenue would come from people who live outside the city and use services, which teed up that question 39 on the upper right hand corner. Does that make you much more likely to support the sales tax? Somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, much less likely, or make no difference? And the much more likely and somewhat more likely uh is in that 67% range. And I think uh the business survey is on the next is that next one? Uh we'll go to the business survey and then we'll go back to it. Oh business survey. Yep. Thank you. Business survey. So in Julie led in the community development led the business survey. So similar question present in the business survey. You heard that from Peter Leatherman that between strongly support and support again that 62% of the business community which probably would be say somewhat surprising that the business community did tend to support again the sales tax why that's relevant um is we start to get into you're thank you. So there's one other one other slide here just to talk about on the survey here my own notes. So this was I would like to read a list of issues related to local environment and sustainability for each of the following. Please tell me if that issue is very important to take action on, somewhat important, not too important or not at all. uh many of the responses here landed in that uh very important to somewhat important which is energy conservation, water conservation, extended mass transit, climate change, reducing waste. So certainly the community there's sentiment in the community to support those initiatives. So you think about again the cap plan and and how we lift that off the ground. Uh would you be willing to see a property tax increase to fund the city's work on these issue? So strongly yes and yes was in that 68% All right. Again, just more more background information for you as we get to these questions. Now, we get to again kind of the pivoting here to the heart of I think a little bit of tonight as well is the facility strategies and the facilities that we've talked about. Uh these are all noted here as you see. So, with the columns on the left, you have the facilities. So, fire station 2, three, four, and five, the community center renovation, March renovation, Williston, and then Glenn Lake. some funding strategies that uh staff has identified. So, for example, on the fire stations, either state bonding, we have not asked for state bonding dollars. We've tended to ask for, as you know, with Opus and with the Marsh, it's possible we should be rethinking our strategy on asking for bonding dollars perhaps for fire stations. We might get more traction in that regard. Uh what we're seeing at least out of out of this legislature is more emphasis towards public safety, water plants, sewer plants, fire stations, police stations more so than recreational services. So perhaps we need to rethink our strategy on bonding requests. Certainly then we have a sales tax option as we think about the fire stations and then general obligation debt as well. So, those are three three different distinct funding opportunities or options in there. Um, and then we've noted as staff how those were listed as priorities in those facility studies. So, for example, fire station two was the first priority. Fire station 3 is the second, four was third, fire station five is fourth. I think I had that. Hopefully, I got that correct. Yes. All right. Thank you. Um, and then with the the wreck facilities, uh, the community center, uh, possible funding strategies, we didn't, I guess they're not all noted there. We could use general obligation debt. And talking with Mr. Nelson, there's I think there's an opportunity perhaps for the community investment fund as well. So, we don't have to look at perhaps general obligation or or taxpayer debt. Uh, the Marsh, we've talked about state bonding. I do think that's probably a harder lift with the Marsh, unfortunately. Uh so we could look at potential sales tax or then again some sort of general obligation debt as it relates to the Marsh Williston. Uh could be sales tax uh or property tax bonding and then some sort of inner fund loan opportunity. So I think Darren has some ideas on looking at ways to look at the Wilson Center uh outside of property taxes and then as we've noted already a few times Glenn Lake is in the CIP. Uh and then also noted with the recck facilities, those priority rankings are also listed. Number one listed as the community center, two Marsh, three Willist, and then Glen Lake is four. But I think Glen Lake is naturally probably going to occur with a skate park. Moving ahead, uh so some of those estimates as a reminder. So going back to Chief Fox's presentation, uh here at the last study session, again, those facilities are noted here. So the fire station, well with all the fire stations, there was renovation and new construction pointed out ranging in anywhere from 19 to 37 million. We we haven't asked or staff hasn't asked about what your preferred option in is in all of that. That's why it's blank because we haven't had that conversation. Um leaving that here alone tonight. Uh but mainly presenting you with just getting your heads wrapped around what's the costs. And so we've got a range of 19 to 37 million with fire facilities. Again, recapping what Kelly and Sarah talked about earlier with our facilities and recreation. That's why I asked you the question earlier, what are your preferred options? Kind of assuming that's kind of where you were if funding wasn't an issue. Uh that could potentially be around 25.8 million. Again, I would note though those are construction costs only. That does not include soft costs as noted in the lower lefthand quarter. If you add in the soft cost, that's I'm not behind. I'm just Oh, I'm I'm tucked off my I'm on track, right? Um, sorry, Darren. I was doesn't include you were listening. You were good. Yeah, it doesn't include. Does this makes Well, now it probably makes more sense. I see it here. Uh, so these are again the recreational facilities as we noted earlier in the first part of tonight's presentation. really just wonder if funding was no option like is that kind of where you're where you're at in terms of options again knowing that these all can change uh looking at just a potential cost of 28 25.867 867 million that does not include soft costs. If you add in soft costs, we're closer to 35 million. So if you go back to the previous slide, so you think of like correct facilities, 35 million perhaps. Go back to the previous slide. Thank you. Fire facilities 19 to 37 million. So really what I think as staff what we're again trying to tee up with you is what is our long-term priorities? What are our long-term strategies? How do we best approach these? when do we approach these etc. So not the question yet, but yeah, Brad. Well, if I can comment there, there's a couple of things because there to answer the question, if money were not an object, well, all of us know that money is an object and and so if money were an object, you know, let's just have Bill Gates pay it for all and get it done. But that's not realistic. So, you know, given the fact that we are in a challenging um budget circumstance, does that change our priorities and how much we're willing to spend? I think that's a more that's a better way to ask the question. Then the other piece going over to the fire stations. Um you know I mean given the circumstance we're in well I cheaper is better. Well no it's not. I mean if if the utility of a re a renovated fire station is 80 points out of 100 and a new fire station is 100 points out of 100. That's a lot different than if the utility is 30 points of a renovated station is 30 points out of 100. Um, and a new station is 100. So, we need to, you know, we need some expert, you know, expert context to better make a decision because I could see some circumstances where say, well, if we get 80 points out of 100 and the difference is, you know, a third the cost, I'll probably go with the 80 points. If it's if it's 30 points and it's it's really limp and by and not very good and going to be obsolete in two years, you know, then that's a much different decision. So, we need a little coaching and perspective to be able to answer these questions, I think, if that's if that's reasonable. And I don't know if anyone articulated better than I did, but but I can see where, you know, I mean, renov um station five has probably more renovation potential than station two would be my guess. that don't know that. That's just a guess. But, you know, I think we need a little context on that to make a better decision here to to guide you because I don't think anyone I don't think this council wants to say, well, we should force our fire department to deal with something that's not very useful, but we got by, right? On the other hand, I think we need some context because I don't think we would recommend probably new construction in all cases. Well, and I mean I think I think the issue is I I think the fire station issue is complex because it's where do we need to improve response times the most with this with the staffing that's needed there and you know some some fire stations have you know you can put a few people there for now kind of thing and and it it's very complicated. So to your point, I mean, it's a lot to weed through and some of the construction costs are more at some places. It's it's not a purely costbenefit analysis in this case. And so that's one thing. And then the other thing is when looking at the the um nausea producing numbers that that we are looking at for you know the needs that we have in the city. I mean, I'm always leaning towards making sure that again the core core services to your so to your point about looking at state bonding for public safety. I mean, that's where I go because I think everyone right now is kind of going to the those sort of baseline core services that literally like keep people alive and and less necessarily the the quality of life um things that that really make Minnotonka Minnitonka, but so I'm always but we still need everything. So, um, I I think your comments are spot on and I and I just think we will need a little more coaching on sort of how to weed through the fire facility cost estimates. Well, and this is what we're looking for tonight, Council. Again, this is a first your first time really kind of seeing it in this kind of format and it's going to take some time. It's going to take some time to get through this and that's okay. And there's no there's nothing pushing us to get this done. It's not November. It's not November. That's why we're starting the conversation today. And really as staff, we want to understand what you what you need further to to get to that decision because there there is a lot of complexities into all of this and how they're funded, when they're funded. And so we teed up the questions. Yeah, it's a big ask on those questions, but certainly we understand there's more information that that we're going to have to bring forward and we'll we'll continue to package and refine and and find a find a path forward. We have some more slides we want to get through. I think that will kind of help kind of Kimberly comment too quick, I think. Oh, I had a question, but I can maybe wait. Okay. Okay. All right. I can do the same. And then opus, you know, we haven't that that was that's still on our radar screen that has not been lost. We've been asking for bonding dollars for I think this is our third Well, take that back. We did receive bonding dollars initially to the tune of 725,000. I think that was in 2023 if I'm not mistaken. And then we've been asking for bonding dollars since for the actual construction aspect of it. That too, um, we'll have to evaluate our ask in that. I think at the end of the day, we want to try to ask for bonding dollars for something that we're going to get bonding dollars for because wherever we get it here is going to help over there. So it it doesn't have to be for that particular project. We're just trying to maximize where we can get some state funds back into the city of Minnetonka and have the best chances of doing that. But yes, Opus is still in the radar screen. It's a potentially $30 million project. We're going to be starting that process here this year in terms of um trying to fill in that blank canvas because it is a blank canvas and there's some work that staff has to do in terms of preparing for that. We're going to be need to bring a consultant on board, some public engagement. We've got to be working with the property owner, but yes, certainly opus and the light rail stations are still a big right a big target for us to hit. So 30 million for the that facility again whether it's state bonding we have potential park dedication fees perhaps the property tax sales tax all on the table as we try to figure out even opus in the mix. If you start adding up the dollars, right, this is the this way what I start off with. It's a long-term planning exercise when you look at our wreck facilities, our fire facilities, opus it, you know, we're in that potentially anywhere from 60 to$100 million in all of this depending on all sorts of moving parts. So, very good. So, we're just about done. Um, those are the questions. Um, before we start answering the questions, if we can, Brad and council, again, those are the questions. Um what Darren has teed up for us is just a little bit about just to give you a sense of if we were to do some level of bonding irrespective of what projects they are. We've kind of teed up four I think four or five different scenarios in here just to give you a flavor of what bonding dollars would look like for any of these projects. So Darren, right? Yeah. Absolutely. So, I simplified that financial management plan, skinned it all down, and try to just focus on just the yellow section here that I overlooked the first time around, obviously. Um, but really a couple different scenarios in here. So, this one here is just kind of a baseline. It gives us that and this is based off of $37.5 million. I know the community center or the recreational facilities was just under that a little bit. Um, and fire station was right in that ballpark. I had a a bond run done about this time last year on $37.5 million. So I'm like, well, we're in the ballpark. We can kind of see percentage-wise what that does to a levy at this point in time. And take into account, we can structure these in a number of different ways. This one's kind of structured kind of stepping into it over a three-year time frame. So a little bit higher the first year, a little bit lower the each of the the next two years on that end of it. So, if you did the the biggest amount for each of those facilities at $37.5 million each, that would add $2.6 million to the levy. Um, bring your levy increase from 7 what do we get? 7.52 to 12.24%. So, we're looking at 5% four and 3/4 5% levy increase at that dollar amount. That's a big dollar. So that's $70 million of a bond issuance hitting hitting the tax level. That was just one scenario. I want to do a couple more as well too. So that's all those all those facilities. That's building new facilities at all new fire stations. That's doing the marsh, the Williston community center. We're getting getting that all done. The next one I did just the fire stations at 37.5 million. That's obviously half of what the previous one was. That brings it down to 9.88 this year, 9.7 next year, 9.02. Fire station impact on the levy is, you know, 2.3, 1.5, 1.5 on those out years. Looking at the 37.5 million, and that's building new of all those facilities. We don't know what the best mix of that is, but kind of just giving you a little bit of baseline. So, those are the high ones. Um, next I looked at fire station improvements and just kind of taking a a little and a bite of the apple and tell maybe something else can trigger something down the road in a couple years if sales tax is available or state bonding or something of that nature. If we did 11.5 million which was me just arbitrarily picking a number two remodel and a number in station two remodel and a new station at station three because those were the priorities. stations 2, three, four, five was a priority. Looking at what was the the highest priority first and then the one after that. So, we needed 11.5 million dollars. Looking at that levy impact, um we'd have about 400 $400,000 the first year. It goes up to 683 the second year. That's about a 73% impact to the levy for 2026. Brings you up to eight and a quarter. Gets you some gets you a start on some of the projects on on that end on the fire side of things. What's the next year then too, Darren? Can you go back? Yep. What is it? It's It's first. Thank you. So 73.47.43. Okay. So it kind of goes, but I just was looking at the total. So it's 8.25 8.8 8.28. Right. So So we're in the eights. Yep. And you're still doing the public safety master plan operational side of that thing during this time frame as as well too. So you're you're taking on some projects. I mean it just looks like the next three years regardless are going to three years are going to be tough be challenging. Yeah. No matter what we do. Yep. Yes. Yeah. Okay. And the in the last three the last two years and this is the third year that they've been challen they've all been very challenging. They get more and more each each year on that end of it. Option four was taking that same scenario with the fire stations, the number two remodel and number three new and then adding in the marsh only. After hearing your discussions from earlier tonight, maybe that priority changes, but adding in um the marsh improvements to this um increases that levy to 9.8% um in 2026, 9.66 in the out year or 27 and then just about 9% in 208 as well. And that's about a 73% levy impact and a half a percent the the following years on on that end of it. I think I did one more small one after this. And so I did just a number two station remodel of $2.5 million and then the community center only. I'm just thinking about probably needing to have to do a bond issue and not wanting to wanting to do it for enough to make it worthwhile and not be cost prohibitive on the right booty fees and the issuance costs and all those kinds of things on on that end of it. Looking at um community center remodel which in the previous slide we talked about maybe funding that of the community investment fund. those funds would still be there and we could use those for another fire station or the marsh or the Williston or any of those types of things, but right now we're kind of looking at, hey, for us to get the the community center done, which is a priority, um we could probably do those of the community investment fund um through some sort of internal loan basically to pay that back over 10 years. We're making, you know, $4 to $500,000 of interest a year. We could assume easily that we're going to clear $350,000 a year over 10 years. that would pay for that that project on that end of it. But this might be a different option as well too if we take that and bond those dollars with minor improvements to the fire the fire station number two gets us that little piece of the apple and gets us down the road a couple more years as an option. So countless options out there. These are just five that I came up with in the top of my head over the course of 15 minutes or so. So um so kind of just wanted to share that with you. kind of wanted to show you what that those tax impacts are. Obviously, you can be as much as you want or as little as you want or none of it you want on obviously on that end of it. So, anything else, Mike? No. Yeah. Thank you, Darren. So, we'll go back to those questions. And so, I think as not to repeat what Darren said, really just trying to give you a sense for what a levy could look like in terms of funding it through general obligation debt. There's again other strategies there. There's sales tax that could be used in any one of these or all of them. There's the general obligation debt. We're just showing you geo debt. If you were to fund it all through geo debt, what that could look like. Um but there are other ways to get there. Um the hard part tonight is and we don't have enough time tonight to lay out all those different scenarios. really want to make sure we're teeing this up to spark conversation to give you a sense of the challenges to give you a sense of what some possibilities could look like. And then that'll your feedback will be helpful as we continue to bring information forward for for all of us to look at what is a long-term strategy and what are those priorities and continue to find options in there. So that kind of gets us back to the questions. All right. And Kimberly, you had a question that you wanted to get answered. I do have a question. Um it's about sales tax. So um as you mentioned the the house passed a bill uh we're continuing the moratorum on sales tax and and so it's going to go to conference committee blah blah are we lobbying and I don't know that any of our Minnetonka representatives are on that committee so like would but are we lobbying is League of Minnesota cities lobbying Is metro cities lobbying are like are we lobbying to not have that moratorum continue? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you Kimberly. If I to answer that I think I've mentioned the sales tax to all of you but just to summarize it again. So where the legislature stands today, the House Taxes Committee, um they passed their version of a tax bill last week and in that version of the House bill, they've extend they the committee extended the moratorum. Trying to get clarifying language around that because it's ambiguous in the sense of it talks about a July extension of the moratorum to July of 26 and then uses the word bienium in that same language. So the question for clarity purposes is is the if the house version is approved is the moratorium for one year through July of 26 or is it for the whole bianium which it gets us through 27 as well. So still so seeking that clarity that bill that's the house version and the senate has also a taxes committee they have not approved their tax bill yet. I'm not sure when that's being heard. We're monitoring it uh in the senate. uh the the chairs and rest. Um we understand from chair rest's position that the moratorum if she got her way that the moratorum would be lifted and not sure what the rules would be in place if we would revert back to current state law. There's also been recommendations by a work group that has been uh presented to the legislature, but we're unclear at this point if the moratorum is lifted in the Senate what version of rules would come into play if there's some. So what we've got is conflicting bills. And so when you got conflicting bills, it goes to conference committee and then the conference committee is which is made up of both house and senator or house representatives and then the senate. Uh they would need to reach a consensus on what a final package would look like. then they go vote on it as a both bodies. So unclear where sales tax will land. Um I think I copied all of you an email I sent to our four legislators just alerting them to our least I think our concern of that moratorum. Um the league of Minnesota cities is tracking it and does is advocating that there would not be a moratorium. Same with metro cities and MLC. So certainly our our affiliate organizations are lobbying their lobbyists on I guess indirectly on our behalf. It behooves us I assume to keep continuing to talk to our own legislators to help them help us help um champion uh that moratorium being lifted. So it does present challenges for us. um if there's a moratorum extension um how that factors into the timing of all this is depending on if the July if it's a July 26 moratorium or if it's through the whole bianum of 27 in either one of those scenarios it does delay us a couple years it goes without saying because there's also language in statute that that city referendums have to be done there's a legal opinions they have to be done in even number years. And so if so we can't count on sales taxes for a house. We're we're real reality is we're probably looking at 28 or 29 maybe construction and 30 process. Right. Right. So we can't I don't think that any of our may correct me if I'm wrong. Um I don't have a record of any of ours our electeds being on the taxes committee. So if if if you know of anybody, if you have connections with anybody, share your keenness. Yeah, I know. So, uh you know that unofficially might be who has to kind of I'll I'll weigh in that on that and I'm want to make it really clear just for the purposes of anybody listening to this. It's not that this can I mean it I'm not representing that lab sales tax solves it all by any means but it is a tool that we could consider and having it available as a consideration as an option right would be helpful to us. I mean I just want to be because I I don't want to be deluded to think that oh if we had that option that would resolve that's the path. No, I mean I think potential well the key point is I mean what the legislature is doing is fundamentally interfering with local control you know and and the rest does not like the word option just so you know but but having the option of a sales tax we we have faced significant budget challenges for the foreseeable future and to take opportunities off the off the able and say, "Okay, well, you can't do that, you can't do that, and you can't do that." I mean, all of a sudden, we we are forced into a position where the good solutions disappear and the bad solutions are the only ones we've got. And so, it is a fundamental local control issue. And you know, I'm not a big fan of the idea of implementing a sales tax, but I want that decision to be mine, ours as a leader in our city, not to have that taken away from me for consideration because I may change my mind because I may, you know, you all may convince me that that's the best tool available. Well, and ultimately it it would be voted on by the That's right. That's right. It's not. So, it's not Yeah. It's not like us implementing a sales tax. Yeah. I mean, I think process simplification and um and not interfering with our our ability to decide what's right for our residents is important and the hypocrisy is not lost on me about who got the sales tax and then was like we got ours and nobody else behind us. Right. Exactly. You know, I just I don't I don't really appreciate that. But we, you know, all of the funding sources at all levels of government are drying up and so they're re they're lit, they're almost leaving us with no options. It's not just bad options, but no options. So that's that shouldn't be the only option. Oh, that's right. Yeah. So that's not something we need to we can we have rely on for the next two, three years, right? So well depending on what happens at the legisle. Even then even then though if it's well if they get rid of the milh hertorium then we could start the process right. Yeah. It's not going to happen tomorrow one way or the other. Yeah. Right. It's going to be a few years. Right. It's going to be a few years. So we should just be a few years as opposed to eight years. Yeah. But for our purposes tonight. Yeah. But I just like it's it's worth discussing because it was mentioned a few times that sale that sales tax might be an option for funding and it might but it also might not. Right. That's right. That's right. Anything we can do to help make it an option would be a nice thing. And I was think Rebecca's that's a good point. Staff feels the same way. It's it's not as though we're saying sales tax is the end all beall. It's more about having the option to have the conversation as many cities around us have done the just to put in further context. Um as you recall the University of Minnesota did a study for us and they looked and they present us with information. Those numbers have been updated. Darren and I have been looking at some correspondence as other cities have been communicating on this same same scenario and have the same concerns that we do. The newer projections, just to give you a sense, the newer projections for Minnitankka is if a half a cent sales tax were to be implemented like some of our surrounding cities, it would generate closer to 6 million, the U of M study was closer to 4 and a.5 million. Um our while the national economy and the worldwide economy is in kind of in flux just with everything happening um at the national level, our local economy is very strong and our our businesses are doing very well. And so converting that $6 million into what could we bond for would get us closer to 80 million. We could do an 80 million type dollar project and have the sales tax pay for that level. Again, as staff, we're not saying that's something we should fully do, but just just so you have that information. Projects or what's that? Projects. Projects. Yeah, projects. Yeah, well, in regards to the questions, yes, I thought we should get to the questions. Okay. Um, to use I mean to keep it really from my perspective simple. I mean, I think Brad's use of the word austerity while is a little uncomfortable. I mean, I think that's the lens we have to look at the 2026 budget from, which is we've taken on a lot over the ca past four, five, six years. And we're getting caught up and we've got these pressures and we've got needs and so the idea of adding anything as like a council wish list or a response. I mean, I'd love to say we could accelerate trial development or all those things. And maybe that's a conversation for a later date as it relates to the franchise fee. But for as far as the general budget goes, my position is that we have to rein it in as much as possible and that's with hiring and you know and potentially looking at are there things that it's time to sunset? Are we things that we're doing just because we've always done them? Um, and I don't mean that from even a staff perspective, but from a council policy perspective, too. Um, so that's my view. So, that addresses I think both questions one and two. You know, I really struggle. I thought Darren's illustrations of how to get some of these things accomplished. I thought it was really helpful. you know, as much as I would hate to see the levy impact, you know, the the last two options, you know, if if you're telling me really makes sense to remodel station two, which I'm not totally convinced on that, you know, but those two scenarios show some incremental progress in a way that could buy us some time in respect to um getting some support at the state level for future fire station um resources potentially address possible you know sales tax as an issue but also moves the moves things forward to get some things accomplished with the most acute needs. So I think that is my perspective. But, you know, I it makes my stomach a little upset to see the levy at that number, but if we really can support it with necessarily necessary accomplishments, then I'm comfortable doing that. Thank you, Rebecca. Other comments, councel? I'm I'm kind of in line with that. I I mean, the idea of adding after what we just saw is just not where I'm at tonight. And I am so deeply grateful to our fire and uh police leadership for their really generosity and and honesty and you know what they feel they can do. I don't if if if something changes and we feel we can't sacrifice that staff, we shouldn't. And to me, to me, um, public safety is is just my top top priority. And I don't I personally don't see if if if station two if remodeling doesn't do what we need it to do, I just kind of feel like it's sort of throwing good money after bad. I just want us to do something that will last for years that accomplishes what the fire department really needs um and set us on the path for really prioritizing um what they've identified as important. And um so that's where I land on that. Um, we do have um I I think the mayor hit on and I I think it there was a slide that showed for the recreation facilities sort of what the priorities were. Um, and I agree with those priorities and I agree of course with the fire station priorities because the people that that need them are telling us what they need. Um, so, uh, I I I think at least the locations of the facilities have been identified and um, I think Kelly did, you know, as far as the uh, recreation facilities talk a little bit about Alakart and blah blah blah. And I think that um you know as we get closer we can start getting in the weeds. This is really a high level discussion and I am definitely even though we want to sunset some things I still feel that the marsh is an investment and I feel like it has potential and I feel like we are so close to making it something that it that it should and can be. So, I'm not really ready to jettison and sell it. I'm not even close to doing that. And in terms of um preferred financing methods, time frames, I think we've already said, you know, some of these things really can't wait eight years. I mean, even when we want something and we know how we're going to finance it, it still takes four years to build a firet truck. So, you know, uh I mean the preferred financing methods are the methods that can spread the pain across the greatest population. Um I know that sales taxes are regressive, but I think, you know, it it does spread it around a lot more people and it just gives us another tool in the toolbox. and um I'm trying to keep the financial pain to a minimum for our tax base. Thank you. Other comments, Kimberly? Yeah, I will. I mean, I pretty much agree with with much of what's been said. Um, I'll just say like, and this can be for future discussions, but if we have to look at what what services we're going to cut, um, if there's a way to do more community engagement, because I didn't find the survey particularly, and I know it's different people, but like one of the highest priorities for people was parks and trails, and one of the highest things that people were willing to cut was parks and trails. So, So that make that makes it a little difficult for me to decide what's a priority based on community sentiment. Um so if we could maybe get some more clarity. I'm not sure how but some more community engagement to find out what what really matters to our residents. Yeah, it's a good point. other comments council I mean I don't have anything okay to add other than I felt the same way like when you were talking about it this morning I was like I can't I can't imagine adding anything with all of this there it just isn't I can't imagine it. So thanks Paula. Um thank you. Uh, I guess if we're talking about priorities to be considered for 2026, and I'll say I also agree with much of what has already been said, but um, my just high level right now, I would be I would like us to try to stay under 9% like kind of in that 8% levy range. Um, and if that means kind of going slow walking through some of the scenarios, potential scenarios that that Darren came up with, you know, the next three years are going to be hard. After that, it looks like the general levy goes down quite a bit. And you know, unless we're using things like the community investment fund or you know, kind of getting some other uh you know, sales tax or whatever, just working to work within our means and not putting too much of a burden on our our residents, I think, is is going to be important given the uncertainties, the general economic uncertainties, given, you know, kind of housing costs um and and what we're trying to do there. So um you know just given everything right now the general economic uncertainty I think that would be my preference in terms of topline things just not even getting operations programming capital that would for me be you know desirable. Um and in terms of the community and business survey results, um for me, one thing that aligned with my own values is the kind of desire to do more in terms of our community action and uh climate action and adaptation program. Um you know, we're talking about other like short-term wants and needs for our community which are, you know, obviously fire and public safety. We're doing pretty well in those things right now. Um, you know, I don't think we're we're doing terrible in those things, but, you know, in terms of uh doing our part to leave a a planet that's viable. Um, you know, I I would like to to to put our our at least a little bit of money where our values are in that. And I'm sorry that we lost the green core uh value legisl or uh personnel, but it would be great to see some way to kind of move forward on that. So that would be, you know, those two things are on uh on my wish list, I guess. And then uh facility improvements. Um are there specific projects? I think we already talked about those and I think those are fairly clear right now. I I I really like the idea of possibly using the community investment fund um for, you know, kind of kicking the ball off and and getting some basic improvements that you know what has to be done. And then maybe some, you know, cosmetic improvements so that we can that like you said um would help uh kind of generate revenues, attract and generate revenues or are what makes sense to me. But also kind of being austere but also being very intentional and deliberate about, you know, what we what we need, what what's already going well and what we're trying, you know, to get to perfection on. um you know maybe we we need to back down on that or stretch that time frame out a little bit so that we can look at some other things from that from my perspective and value system um you know are important for not just this generation but you know seven generations down the road. Anyone else? Um couple of comments. Um the uh uh I mean you know our eyes are bigger than our stomachs um here. I mean, we've got um we've got a lot of needs and u we and and resources are challenging. Um and basically, I think the way we've looked at things tonight and it's very early is that we we basically assumed a status quo in terms of economics. We didn't talk about what if there's a recession. what if you know and there's there's a lot of risk and what if out there and when I back in the days when I was a new products guy um you know I whenever we do a I would do a projection on the potential of a new product I'd say okay what's the best case what's the worst case and what's most likely and and I think we have to think bring some of that thinking to us okay well how do our priorities change if we have a recession we don't control whether we're going to have a recession or not it's one of those uncontrollables but it's clear that affects So I think I think we have to bring a little of that thinking into um our budget because we are in very uncertain economic times. Today was a good day um for the economy but you know tomorrow may could be could be equally as bad you know we we are in uncertain economic times so we can't just I mean and I do think we mentioned I mean I think it's very top of mind for all of us and I and so it is the way I'm thinking about this. No. Well, that's it in terms of in terms of mitigating risk, but I think that that's part of what we have to do. Um then the other piece of it is that um you know, and you've probably heard me change a little bit too in some of my comments tonight. Um we we need to be looking at um any and all revenue sources. um to um to answer some of the challenges we face because our our needs are far greater than our um ability to pay for them. And so, yeah, should we consider local sales tax? Yeah, we shouldn't not consider anything. But but the other thing I I wonder um and this is maybe La La Land a little bit but you know we do have a strong business community and you know what about um what about um partnership partnerships public you know exactly what about naming rights what about totally offthe-wall different sources of revenue that we have never utilized before and maybe we're Minnetonka and we don't do that but but the reality is we have to we have to get creative Um I I was at um David Schultz's um um political graduate political science class a week ago today and I said, you know, one of the things about you Minnitanka that makes us unique is our brand is Minnetonka. Lake Mitanka is tied to our brand, but what happens is at the legislature, all those greater Minnesota people, all those people from Minneapolis and St. Paul think we're the rich people. And I said, you know, I looked today at the median house price in Minnetonka, which is $520,000. I looked at Weisetta, which is $1.08 million, the median house price. And I looked at St. Louis Park, and it's $370,000. So understand this about Minnetonka. We look a lot more like St. Louis Park than we do like Weisetta and all the lakes communities. But in the minds of anybody who doesn't live right here, we are all those communities. Everybody's a millionaire here. I mean, when you tell people you're from Minnitankka, the first thing they ask is, "Oh, do you live on the lake?" I mean, we've all had that experience. But that's the perception. That is the battle we face and the battle we fight. So, everybody thinks we're a bunch of rich people who when we ask for things, we're a bunch of rich whiners. when in reality we're a lot more like St. Louis Park than we are like Weisetta or Deep Haven or Greenwood or any of those city or excelsier any of those cities. So that's a battle we face. So I think in terms of our asks we have to get to the basics. We have to ask for public safety. We have to talk about um the deficiency of our fire our our our fire stations. We have to talk about our response times and we have to really ask for the blocking and tackling um because we can make the case there and um and we've got a stronger story to tell. I mean even OP opus is a great project and tied to transit and everything else but again we have to deal with the perceptions that exist about what Minnetonka is like. I think our chances are better for fire fire stations um um given our deficiencies than they are for public realm improvements to um um um opus that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking for that but I think we have to prioritize what we ask for given given the perceptions that we have to deal with because people don't make decisions based on reality they make them based on perceptions and the perceptions are not don't work in our favor so you know um you know I just think even added uh creativity in terms of um funding sources. I think we have to we have to really dig deep. We have to talk to the major corporations in our city and ask you know I mean United Health I mean they got a lot of problems but they got a lot of money too and and we are providing a lot of a lot of police support to them. We have been so supportive of them. Now they're paying for some of that. I know that too. But you know we have to get creative in terms of asking. So, I think we need to look for new funding funding sources because we we take care of our corporations. We take, you know, I mean, why is Minnetonka um why does Minnetonka have the largest company in the state, United Health, and the largest private company um in the country, if not the world, in Cargill? Um, you know, let's let's mine some of those. Uh um we take pretty good care of those companies. Let's um maybe it's time to ask for something back. And I know I know that's that's begging. I don't like that. But um you know I'm willing I'm willing to be creative. So anyway, you know I think um so go down the questions question I made my long statement now but you know I think the priorities we've laid out are appropriate. Um I I talked I think fire stations first. Um I I think we've prioritized in terms of our nice to haves in terms of the community center and and and the marsh and I I think we've I think we've laid those out pretty well. Um, you know, so have I covered all the questions? I think, you know, I think we know what we need. Um, and it's and I and I want to say Darren, I thought your little bit of modeling was very helpful because I heard what Paula said about 9%. My view is it's not 9%, it's less than 10 in the nines. We got to stay out of the double digits. I I mean I really think that and and I remember you know about a long time ago um uh we we needed money for streets and the council decided none of none of I was the only person on the council way back then um and we decided I think our levy um increase got to be 11 12% for two years and I think the public understands paying paying more when you are very clear about your needs if they don't feel it's going to last forever or too long. And so I think we can get away with two years and three is a little tough, but but I think if we can make a finite ask for finite specific reasons, I think we can we can get away with that. As hard as that will be, I'd much rather have it for two years than three. But I think I think if we can keep below 10 and we can, you know, have a good story to tell about how finite a period of time we're asking for, I think we can pull that off. Um, but it's it's going to be challenging. And again, the wild card is what's the economy going to do? Exactly. And I mean, and and I just I I get I do get a little worried about making making plans and kind of, you know, uh maybe getting to the preliminary budget and then or or maybe it's right before we get to the prelim preliminary budget and the economy tanks and then we're scrambling like, you know, what what can we do? Yeah. Um and I and and that feels like about what the timing would be. So I I spoke with Kent Carlson today. He is the mayor of Deep Haven and Deep Haven's one of those cities that I think their median house prices at are over a million dollars. But he said, you know, I was talking to a resident this week. They lived in Deep Haven for a long time and they paid a relatively modest price for their home. Um but you know, and uh and oh, by the way, Deep Haven's looking at hiring their own um assessor because they thought um Hannipan County did such a horrible job on their assessing and created a lot of problems. But that's a that's another topic. But he said, you know, this family, they've lived in Deep Haven for a long time, but their taxes are just going up so much. They told me that they're going to move because they really were not they're not high income people. They happen to have a valuable house, but the taxes are such that they can't afford to live there anymore. And you know what that is? That is a story. Plus, 25% of our residents are 65 years of age or older. when your incomes don't go up, they go down. Um, you know, so those are the things that we we are grappling with. We, you know, we when when you get those nasty grams from senior citizens who, you know, who are my age, um, who who say, well, you're taxing me out of my house. I mean, that's going to be true for more and more people. So, you know, I I think we really have to look at how can we get as creative as possible because because we're these are challenging times. So, but I I think we're on I think we agree on the priorities. I hope we've provided enough direction, but we don't have good options. Sorry. I don't hate to be Debbie Downer, but every once in a while it happens. So, kind of just following up on those points. I'm just wondering, you know, not to again heartburn for staff, but should we be thinking about having kind of a plan A plan B as we're going through these exercises? I guess we are. Well, it never hurts. I mean, it never it never hurts. I don't know. Maybe staff does that anyway. So, well, I think they do, but Well, I would just say that as again, it's the whole budget process, right? It's coming in front of you many more times. We're going to have every time it comes in front of you, we'll have new information about the economy and the ever evolving circumstances. So, I think we'll we we pivot very well. And I think part of what you've seen in the past from as in staff presentations is as we get closer to August when you have to adopt a preliminary tax levy, we'll we'll have a menu of options of here here's here's things that can be if the situation warrants things to be taken off the table, we'll have a menu of things for us to explore. Good. I think that's more productive than having trying to do multiple budgeting scenarios. Right. So, I think it's more keeping keeping a tab on the things that are budget impactful, things that are more corridor services and things that have more discretionary type. There's not a ton of discretion in all this, but certainly there are some things that we'll have on that list that can be for consideration to to to take off or if the economy goes the other way, things that we could possibly look at adding to. So, we certainly will keep that as a possibility. All right. Does anyone have anything to add? Have we given you the direction that is helpful to or have I have we No, I think it's been very helpful. No, I think as we started out tonight the and I said probably a few times we're starting out here and uh I think we've made some way on understanding what are top of mind for you where your priorities are. Um so I think yeah I think tonight we we've served the purpose of getting trying to start getting it nar. Thank you. First step. Yeah. Yeah. I I think I think the um fire chief's presentation on the the the staffing and response and all of the service model gives us a lot of good context for some of the decisions that so I think I would just and I would just say I think you have the staff hopefully you feel that over the years staff has been creative as we look at new inov innovations, use the technology, finding our our re different ways of um being efficient in our operations because that's where the the creativity also comes in how we operate, not not even on the revenue side of the equation. So it's on the expenditure side where I think Darren and I say see all the time from all of our directors just ways of doing our operations differently things that you don't probably see every day at a council level but certainly I can tell you that our staff is always looking at ways of streamlining making things more efficient using technologies investing in technologies uh to do that very thing the harder side and to be honest I think the harder side is on the revenue side and it certainly always look creative ways is that's why we've put an emphasis on the grants uh to find different grant track our grants and and understand their grants from that perspective. Uh certainly we've relied on building permit revenue as kind of a kind of our saving grace at times and certainly the economy has a huge impact on on our permit revenues. Yeah. Outside of that it it's I think we're all looking for the money tree plant that can fill in that that gap. But certainly we'll look to find ways on on revenue exploration Just speaking really quickly because I know we're up against our time like with United Health Group. They have they've offered us a facility in in down in their park down in Opus. So, we're looking at perhaps a contract to expand a police station, a substation um at a very good value. So, yeah, there are there are things like that in the works that we'll continue to bring forward to you as they come to fruition. But, yeah, certainly looking at all those options both on the revenue side and expenditure side. Great. And the only thing I would say is I don't want I hope that none of my comments or any of our comments mean to suggest that um we we don't think that's happening. I mean I I you know we have an outstanding staff and you are tremendously creative. Um, if we can bring a few new ideas that can bump, you know, contribute to that, great. But, you know, I really I have a high level of confidence. And I don't want like I don't want Kelly or any of the staff to feel like we don't value recreation. I mean, it's it literally makes life in Minnetonka life in Minnetonka. It's the quality of life stuff that's so important and makes us distinctive. But um you know when when the patient is is sick or needs attention, you know that you need what you need and um so well thank you. I would just end my comments by saying again thank you council. Appreciate it. We knew tonight was I say we I think as staff we knew that tonight would be a longer perhaps conversation as we get through some of these challenging budgets and just given all the capital needs. I mean, that that's that's the difference in all this is just funding for all these long-term capital needs. I still find it an exhilarating exercise because we're we're looking at the future of our city and how we position it long term. And and my takeaway is that, you know, I think if there's any way we can get these community center improvements made, we want to do that because it is I mean, it's it it's the part of our city that more people come to than any other facility in our community. and we we needed to reflect well on um on Minnetonka. So I think we have pretty broad agreement on that. So anyway, we got to talk about um study session work plan too. So unless anyone has any last comments, we'll move on. All right. It's up to you. Oh, yes. Nothing has changed, council. So you do have in your last agenda item is the upcoming study session topics that's up on the screen or not. It is in your packet. That's okay. We got it right. It's not up on the screen. We've got it. So in June we've got our CIP. So we'll we'll be back at the budget next month. will be really dissecting their CIP, looking at our EIP, our 30-minute open time. And then in July, we've got all things housing. So, I know there's a number of things that Julie and her team will be presenting on housing. Uh, and then we'll also talk about youth programming and opportunities. August again is a big one just with the general fund budget and then our infrastructure rate study and asset management. We may move some things around with that just with um some scheduling, but we're booked out the next few months. So that's our game plan unless council you tell us otherwise. Thank you. All good. Thank you. We did get that considering all the stuff.