Call the meeting to order. This is the regular city council meeting for Minatrista of August 3rd, 2026. Uh first order, I'd like to remind everybody to turn their phones on airplane mode or silent and so they don't disrupt the meeting. And second, would you please join me for pledge of allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> So, welcome everyone this evening. Thank you for coming. And also for those watching on YouTube later on. I'm going to start with uh some introductions. I'm Lisa Whan. I'm the mayor. And to my left are council members Peter Vicky, Claudia Lacy, and Brian Govern. Um absent this evening is Kathleen Refkin. And then we have on the end we have our city engineer with WSB is Allison Falsky. And then we have um Gary Peters who is our public works director. To my right we have Jasper Krugal our city administrator. Brian Grim who is our finance director. David Ael who is our community development director. And then we have Sarah Sansala here with us tonight. She's Kennedy and Graven our legal um council. And then in the end we have Chief of Police Craig Squires. So with that, are there any changes or additions to the agenda? If there are none, is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? So >> thank you, Mr. Victory. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Govern. Any other questions, comments? All those in favor signify with I. >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes for all. So we have a couple of special presentations this evening. This is Do you want to kind of line it up or >> Yeah, I sure can. Um, we have kind of a continuation of our employee appreciation milestone events. So, we we had a few folks come in um at the last meeting and we have a few more that weren't able to attend uh that meeting. I don't know if you want me to go through them. And um we have we have Craig Squires who's here who's present over there. Um he's celebrating 25 years of service with the the city of Minitrista this year. Um Trevor Barrett who's not here tonight. Um he's at 10 year 10 years. Uh Spencer uh Ko is at five years. He is not here I believe. And then we have uh Jake Terrace for five years here and he is present tonight. So um we have a certificates for you all uh that are here present. And then um I think we'd like to get a a photo op with everybody. Okay. >> [laughter] >> So, um, I just want to say, um, it's great to have you both on board. Um, I know you've been here 25 years. You just recently stepped in as the chief, but you were ready and willing to do that. So it was a very nice mission from when Paul left here. So great to have you to continue with that. Hopefully you'll stay here for another 25. [laughter] And thank you also for five years. That's that's huge. And of course we know how important it is to have a public safety department. One that's great which obviously you're part of that team and we really appreciate it and we're so glad that you're here. and you're gonna put in another 15 [laughter] someday you might. >> So, thank you very much for your participation. You guys want to get in a little bit? All right. So, next on the agenda, Eric, let's see. Hold on. Um, is a persons to be heard? We don't have anybody signed up, so we'll move on to consent agenda. Are there any you wish to remove? Hearing none, then the consent agenda items include approval of our work session meeting minutes from July 20th, 2026. approve our city council regular meeting minutes from July 2026. A resolution to approve claims. D is an ordinance of 508 for lift assist ordinance. And E is a resolution authorizing the publication of ordinance number 508 by title and summary. F is a resolution to accept bids and award the contract for a sewer lining project. G is a resolution to approve a sideyard setback variance at 5800 Lake View Drive. And H is a resolution to approve a simple subdivision and variance at 3780 and 3790 Enchanted Lane. I is a resolution to approve a quote for decommissioning and sealing of well number five. J is accept the MDH grant for the decommissioning of well number five. and K is amend our SCADA services agreement with AE2s. Is there a motion to approve A through K consent agenda items? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Lucy. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Governor. Governor [laughter] Governor maybe someday, right? Um all those in favor signify with I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes and you folks are good to go. So next we have we don't have any public hearings this evening. We have some business items. First, uh we have a ordinance that we talked about briefly and asked staff to bring back. It's a data center moratorum and I'll hand that over to David. >> Yeah, thank you madame mayor and members of council. Um that is correct. It is an ordinance that establishes a mor a moratorum on all uh new data centers that would come in for application for the city of Minatrista. Um just to be clear, we don't have an application in there. there has not been any submitted to us, but uh our council seeing what's happening in the the metro area and and in our area, seeing these things pop up and um some of the the issues that it's caused um did the the right thing in terms of uh ordering staff asking staff to bring a moratorium forward. Um, if adopted tonight, what this does is it puts a pause on any application that were to come in and it allows us as staff to work with you city council uh to examine the situation and uh establish rules and regulations, if you will, if if an application were to come in in the future. Um, this will last for one year. Um, and staff will be working on gathering information and uh probably having some discussions with council at future work sessions to figure out uh what direction we'd like to go in terms of uh coming up with a new ordinance that uh puts conditions and regulations on data centers as they come in in the future. Um so in addition to the ordinance that's before you this evening if if you do pass that um we do have a resolution that would authorize for publication of the ordinance by title and summary. As you can see it is a lengthy ordinance. Um, so it's probably in the best interest to do that by uh title and summary this evening. Uh, we can stand for any questions. >> Thank you, David. Any questions? Again, we're just kind of preempting, if you will, any potential um applications and I believe we can have this in place up to 18 months. I'm sorry. Well, only 12 months. Okay, 12 months. So, we'll have to be looking at this um over the course of the next uh 12 months, obviously. So um any other questions? >> Questions by a few comments. Um I actually support the study but not necessarily a moratorum. Um I think there's a significant opportunity for first movers in the data center area. I think putting a moratorum would um essentially take us out of the running. If we look uh there's there's good data centers and there's bad data centers. There's a lot of kind of bluster out there on social media, but there are good data centers. Most people don't even know they're they're in their area. Um and I I think that the madame mayor, you and the council are we more than capable of assessing if there is a data center proposal uh to ensure that it it is um consistent with you know the nature of our community and is it meets our the needs of our uh residents um with there cuz my understanding is that currently there's only one industrial zoned lot in Minitrista. Um [clears throat] and so if there was a proposal for a data center, we would have to uh reszone something else which would give us in my opinion plenty of opportunity to vet uh any proposed uh data centers um from that. Secondly, really the risks and externalities. So that would be any kind of pollution, noise, anything um increased power bills uh from a data center is very similar to any kind of heavy industrial um thing that would go in there. So I don't really see data centers as a unique um as posing unique threat to the character of Minatrista uh beyond any other heavy manufacturing um for that. So I'm not really sure why we would single out data centers as opposed to just any heavy industrial. Um so so given that um and I would oppose uh a moratorum but I uh do support the uh creating a study to create a better more objective framework for how we would assess that in the future. >> So the the moratorum will actually allow us to do exactly what you're talking about. It will give us an opportunity to assess and put limitations and guard rails on it. Currently, if we were to get an application in at any given time, regardless of where they would want to build, we would have to accept that application and we would have to go through the process. And that's what I'm trying to kind of put the um brakes on for right now because we don't have those guard rails in place and we don't have we've never done a study. We don't have anything in our ordinances that says what they can and can't do. So that study that you're talking about, we would be doing that um with this during this moratorum and it would ensure us that we wouldn't have to have to act on an application because once we get an application in, we are by law we must then act on that application. >> So >> that makes sense. >> Yeah. So I so we're going to study it and we don't have to take 12 months. We can take 6 months. So we can take 8 months or whatever time frame we want to take and in that time um we're going to study and put those those guard rails or those those limitations in place so that when an application does come in then we can say here's our ordinance and this is what you have to abide by. And I think that's really what we want to do because I'm not interested in having a hundred people here yelling at us and that's more than that. >> That's what will happen. And so I think this is just preempting that. So I understand what you're saying. >> Yeah, I think a moratorium is really important too. >> Okay, agreed. I I think it's a it's a very big hot topic and it would require [laughter] we're going through a lot right now just with what we're doing and I don't a year goes fast. So >> I would like a year to think about yeah everything and to work on those guard rails and and limitations. So um so Sarah just a quick question for you. Um I'm s I'm certain you reviewed this and it's probably your handiwork in this so you're good to go on this. Okay. Thank you. So then um any other comments hearing? None. Then is there a motion to approve ordinance number 509 which is the data center moratorum? >> So moved. >> Thank you Miss Lacy. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you Mr. Vicky. Any other comments? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> I. All those opposed? >> Nay. When opposed, that would be Mr. um council member Govern. So then um resolution number 87-26 which is authorizing the publication of ordinance number 509 by title and summary. Is there a motion to approve that? >> So move. >> Thank you, Mr. Victory. Victory Victory. Okay. Um second. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you, Mr. Govern. All those in favor signify with I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. for Oh, and then ordinance number 510, which um is related to the city council pay. I'll let take that. >> Madam, mayor, members of city council, uh before you is an ordinance that was uh developed, the frame, the framework was developed at our last work session. Um what it would do is it would move our city council pay from $400 a month to 500 and our mayor pay from 500 to 600 effective January 1, 2027. stand for any questions. >> Any questions? We brought this up at our work session. We looked at other communities to see how we've, you know, what they pay and we're be kind of in the middle or you know, right there. All right. So then is there a motion to approve ordinance number 510, city council pay? >> So move. >> Thank you, Mr. Victory. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Govern. Further questions, comments? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 40 O. So, next we're going to have a budget discussion. I'm going to hand that over to Brian, Mr. Grim. >> Yes. Thank you, Madame Mayor and Council. And got a PowerPoint that's probably 10 slides that should summarize the 25 or so that was in the packet, which I'm sure everyone's read through. Um, but um it's going to hit the highlights tonight. Um, so this is our first look at the 2027. sort of the first more detailed look. I guess back in June, we had talked about uh you know some of the uh I guess um overlying factors or even just highlights of some of the things that we know we're looking at for the uh 2020 27 budget and uh this presentation will pretty much uh reaffirm a lot of those items and give some more detail to that. So um [snorts] basically we're looking at having that preliminary levy, you know, for the end of September. So, we've got a few chances to talk about it tonight um in a couple weeks here and then in in September again to adopt the levy which is the maximum levy for the year for 2027. Um and that's uh certified to the county by that end of September so they can send out the truth and taxation statements in November. as far as you know timeline uh tonight um we'll probably maybe talk again at work session in a couple weeks here I guess or depending I guess what council uh directs and then uh I think we have a couple meetings in September or the September 9th and the 21st we could look at adopting the plinary levy each year we try to um look at the different um service levels we look at our capital equipment plan make sure our fund balance reserves are okay and then um you know funding our roads. So those are some of the main categories that are financed by the tax levy obviously where our water rates and stuff come from, you know, our water fund activity comes from our water rates and and so on, the utility rates, but this is, you know, up for our taxes for next year. this one more get into the uh the numbers and I think uh basically this summarizes I get like page 135 or so of the packet but um if you want to see it in front of you but uh the general fund levy is is has the biggest uh increase and that's to fund you know obviously the the services for you know public safety, public works administration um [snorts] and that um also we'll talk about later in the PowerPoint trying to keep our fund balance at that 40% level that we have set as our fund balance policy. CIP plan we have going up um a decent amount there. Um that's basically we have some items that we're looking at as far as um a record management software in the police um department looking at potentially a new ERP or finance software system to try to fund that and get that in place over the next couple years. So there's some items there under that CIP levy where that's pushing that dollars up. Um [snorts] the debt fund has um a potential equipment certificate as well as adding on the 2026 roads. So that's where you'll see the increase there. And then the roads piece even though I mean it's staying similar but we have done some additional debt levies with our our roads projects in the last 2023 26. Um we do have special assessments coming in. So that road fund is still pretty healthy at over $2 million balance. So um that basically when you add those all together you have a a levy a gross levy of about 8.75 million um over you know this year's levy of 7.83. So it's about a little under you know about 11 you know 12% increase there you can see summarized there this chart tries to bring everything together as far as it gives the the tax levy on the top line going from as I stated that basically seven um you know.7 million to 8.6 six uh sort of gives the uh the trend on the general fund reserves. Um 2022 was still spending down a lot of our the CO dollars. So that's where you'll see the the dollars going down there. 2023 was uh general fund went back up because we had some of the uh the apartments and the uh um grocery store building permits coming in. So we had some additional activity there. And you can see the last few years we've sort of been having a pretty balanced budget. Um, keeping our fund balance percentage in that basically low to mid 40%. Tax impacts. I think that's pretty much what everyone wants to see or when it boils down to it is what would what would this, you know, proposed levy do for some uh different property values in the city? And there's a few different um uh columns there and and rows where basically it shows you sort of a lower medium and like our medium homes about 650,000 or so. And then so that's where the 450 650 and 850,000 amounts are there. So you can see um if those property values or properties had about a 3.5% valuation increase. Um you can see that what the different uh annual adjustment would be the taxes there on that $450,000 home. would be about $6 a month. Um the $650,000 home would be $120 for a year, about $10 a month, and then so [clears throat] on for the uh about $160 for the the home that's, you know, pushing where the $900,000. >> Anyone have any questions so far or as far as I >> was just No, go ahead. >> Okay. You can see I mean I guess last point um go back. Sorry. Uh, our tax rate is still pretty low compared to some of our neighbors when we want 21 22%. I think everyone's probably at least we've touched on that before that our our tax rate is is still pretty good there. So, couple slides here more just um I guess to reinforce the green um slice of pie is the city's share. So, if you have a $650,000 home and you're you're in the West Tonka school district, basically your city taxes are about 1,450 um about 22% of your total bill of 6567. So, um the county is the biggest um piece of the pie in this case and then the school and then the city. So, just I guess uh remind everyone that they're in this case 6,500 you're paying in taxes about 1450 is coming to the city. Um, >> do we have an idea of what the county is planning on increasing their taxes? >> You heard him, Jasper. I guess, uh, >> if [clears throat] I may, it's varied quite a bit. Um, I think it's around 12%. Um, but I think they're still working through the process just like we are. So, um, but it's much higher than what they've done in the past. I think, um, tied to some of that Medicare, uh, or Medicaid >> Medicaid, uh, things that got shifted to them from, uh, the feds, federal government. So, um I can look into that a little bit more to see once where where they're kind of settling in at >> I was just curious cuz I obviously were independent of them, but uh when the average minitrist city resident opens their tax bill, they don't uh I don't think they look at to see what percentage goes where. But and I would also mention uh obviously we need to look at our our budget and how what we what we want or need I should say um because we have no not a lot of control over the counties other than of course you can call your county commissioner and and you know express your concerns but yeah >> Brian what are you uh projecting for uh increase in employee costs and salaries And >> so wise >> plugged into the uh budget right now this preliminary one is probably between 4 and a half to 6% and I know there's I've been worked with or got the summaries from Jasper as far as the union contract proposals and some of the personnel committee um discussions. So um so it pretty much is in that range for weight. That's yeah in there. It's about basically between four and a half and six depending on which bargaining unit and if you're in a union or non-un but >> in that range. So not too big a difference but like difference between the different groups I guess. Got >> okay. So we're all on the same page there. >> Yep. Yeah. So I just to get everybody up to speed we we negotiate with we're negotiating with four unions right now um for 2027. We really kicked off and gotten pretty far along with the with one of the police unions. There's um two more that will likely follow shortly after we get the we get the first one settled. And then the public works group, they just uh engaged last week. So, >> and we're going to meet this week and kind of go over um wages and comp and that's the big thing. Their their their request sheet is less than one page long. So, that's good. We have only a couple things to work through. >> Good. Good. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, um, with that, >> what I would say too is we should be looking at, and I I read the info in our info packet, but, um, and I know what the, um, recommendation or what the, um, committee, uh, personnel committee is suggesting. However, I feel like it would really be unfair to give a whole lot less to our admin union people when you know and more to union just because they're union. So, I think we need to look at that um when we maybe when we finalize the union pays and the union increases to see how that shakes out because then I think we need to do something competitive for for everybody. So, it's across the board similar. And the other thing too is um I did notice in there it said that the personnel committee and nothing against the personnel committee, sorry, but um that they discussed a um fund balance strategy and I don't think that belongs in the personnel committee. I think that belongs at the council level. And I think we need to talk about where we want to have that fund balance and and the strategy that we're going to take moving forward. So, um maybe what we need to do um also reviewing the personnel policies and things like that, maybe we need to look at our personnel policy or or handbook or something and we need to define what the personnel committees charge or how do you say what their charge is or what their tasks are so that we don't overlap or that we don't um kind of get off in in tangents because I think it's really important that certain things are a whole council discussion versus just a committee discussion. And I think the fund balance policy or strategies, those are definitely a council discussion. So if I don't know if we wanted when was the last time that we updated it, you know, >> um so there's a couple things going on. So in our in our city code uh the personnel committee is established and kind of it tasks the personnel committee with doing certain things and then it also alludes that there should be a section in our uh employee handbook that defines kind of the bylaws of the of the personnel committee as far as I've been able to locate I have not been able to locate that in our personnel policy. So, it's probably something we should, you know, work on maybe throughout 2026 to establish, you know, just those kind of bylaws. Um, and I'll just say from like a personal note, I'm getting some city council members saying certain things should be on the personnel committee and then some are saying that it shouldn't. So, I' I'd personally like that guidance as far as, you know, what's what what we specifically talk about at various times of the year and then if there's any question, we just bring it to the council and then the council can then potentially choose to kick it back to the personnel committee or form another committee or something. Um, you know, if there's something specific, but we don't really have the the framework, I think, um, >> at least as far back as I could see in the different variations of the employee handbook. So, it might be a good exercise just to have the the conversation at council. >> Well, if I may, I mean the is I mean everything affects the budget. So that the I mean I get what you're saying, but it it does ultimately impact you know what we're going to have as a budget and a levy. Uh so [clears throat] uh I think I I don't think the committee was uh you're usurping any you know responsibility of the council but it has to be kind of on our mind you know we're thinking about these things. Uh and then I'd say the other thing was that uh uh we were looking at competitive uh cities and how you know what what they pay uh versus you know what we pay to make sure that >> we're in line but you know not overly generous. So I think that's that's kind of where the committee was was headed. So just so you're aware >> okay yeah and I get that. I just want to make make sure that see I I guess the the way I view it and I could be wrong but I would like the personnel committee to look at what is needed and then bring it back to the council and say here's what we think we need in order to retain our good employees and in order to be competitive in the job market today. This is what we think we need. and then the council says, "Well, okay, but that doesn't fit into our budget." Or, "Yes, it does fit in." You know what I'm saying? So, I think I'd like I guess I'd prefer that the um and I could be wrong on this. I you know, other opinions are are um are fine, too, but I think I'd rather have them say, "We looked at the data. We looked at we did the comparisons. Um we're looking at how we can stay competitive and how we can stay on top of this." um versus we're going to now talk about um fund balance strategies because that I think then it comes to the council and then the council says, "Okay, but how does that fit into our fund balance? How does that fit into our levy? How how how does this work?" And then the council decides what we what how we're going to move forward. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Well, and I think we've done a lot of that. Maybe Jasper could >> speak to that too. But I think we did follow that track and but but you're right. I mean, we did discuss a budget too because obviously that's kind of want to Yeah. I'm not saying the personnel committee should put blinders on, but I want it I want the personnel committee to really make the decisions without consideration for the budget so that they bring it back and then we decide whether it's you know what I'm saying. It's so that you're not um skewing your your recommendation. that I don't know it might >> it does and I you know I I'm partially to to blame for bringing some of this stuff because I kind of set the agenda for the um personnel committees and I try to do my best judgment of what goes to council and the personnel committee. So, you know, the the fund balance policy was something that I I got some feedback that we should bring to the personnel. But, you know, I think this is just a healthy discussion about what what goes to the personnel committee and and what goes to council and I think we can always use the personnel committee as the backboard to send stuff back to, you know. So, >> um but I think it it'd be a good exercise just to have the conversation um to establish kind of those I don't know if you call them bylaws or framework. Yeah. For the >> for the committee itself. >> Okay. which we can talk about in a future work session if that's something that we want to do. >> And the other thing I think we need to decide and um focus on too is because I know this is going to be part of the union contract discussions is the benefit package. So I don't know if we decide that now or if we decide it um you know after the union contracts are done. uh at what point do we decide that because I know there's been some talk cuz I know currently it's 1,500 for families and 900 for individuals and that hasn't been adjusted in 8 years and so there's some discussion about adjusting that. So, do we discuss that now and adjust it or as a council so that moving forward they have their because it should be the same for the unions or do they dis debate it with the unions and then bring it back to the council >> and I I mean Peter's Peter's privy to all this information. The unions are are pretty much bringing the benefit package to our attention and that's one of their higher priority items that they want to negotiate. So, I think a lot of the union contracts will hinge on the benefit package and the the cafeteria benefit amount. Um, and we've done a lot of research and you know there I'm going to I'm going to send an email I think out to the personnel committee tomorrow with uh some of the additional survey data that we've compiled over the last couple weeks. So, um but it is it's it's something that probably will make or break all of the contracts I think at this point in time because they're all yeah all the police they're talking to each other and the the public works are talking to the police. So, I think they're that they're all prioritizing our benefit package and want to at least discuss it >> and yeah. >> So, do we want to So, Brian, what did you add into this current budget levy? I mean, where are we at with that? Because that I want to see if they come in and say we want, you know, $5,000, whatever they want, and it's like way out outside those limits, then you might as well just say no. >> So, from Yeah. talking with Jasper and stuff there for just the preliminary budget. I I use 2,000 for family and a thousand for single just based on >> trying to get the right spot. you know, how how high can you adjust it versus, you know, it hasn't been adjusted like it's been said for eight years, but you can't jump maybe from A to go A to B to C versus just A to C, you know, because, you know, even if the averages are, you know, families 21 2200 and singles, 1100, you know, maybe it's got to take a couple years to get there or something, right? So, that's what I used for this budget was two in one. I guess basically it's 2,000 for family, 1,000 for single, which is basically 500 more for family and and 100 more for single, right? >> So, council, what what are your thoughts? I until you come back and and see what the unions say or >> in my experience, that's typically the union ends up driving what the benefit uh discussion is. So, I would think that would probably be one we give priority to. >> Okay. >> And I think we're in the ballpark where if there would be some upward pressure, it wouldn't be an unre, you know, or whatever. It would be able to incorporate into the budget. We're not I don't think like hundreds of dollars off, you know, or what or how do you want to say we're not, you know, or 25% off or something, you know, I think it would be something that would be able to be, you know, worked into. So, in other words, kind of sit back, wait and see what the union contracts, what we can negotiate with the union contracts. Yeah. >> I mean, is that >> Well, the other issue is uh uh do employees that don't take our insurance here at the city, say they have a spouse that has a plan that's more favorable, do we pay them out or or or not, you know, or do we give them? So, so there you can kind of see why that quickly devolves into talking about the budget. But anyway, uh so that's another factor that uh >> that that would be a policy I think, right? I mean, we'd have to de um develop a policy as to what the city will do. >> Yeah. And and and you know, I've been working with the personnel committee on the opt- out policy and I think they just you guys want some more information on that. Um, but I mean I can if you want to know more about it, I can kind of just regurgitate some of the framework of it. But it's something that and the reason it's been brought up is some employees have come to me and said this would be nice if I could do this because my spouse has um >> better coverage >> better coverage and I have an opportunity to hop on their plan but under our current policy we we force the employee to sign up for our health insurance. Okay. which is a rem which is a remnant of um a cooperative insurance program that we were part of that that required all employees to sign up. >> But now it's different. >> Now it's different. Since 2023, we've been on the open market, the ACA open market >> um small group plan which doesn't require all employees to sign up. So there is an opportunity to offer an opt out. um the general framework that I that I kind of discussed with the personnel committee was it would be 80% of whatever we determined the single coverage would be. So, and I break down it's actually in the info packet if you're interested to look at it. But, um break down, you know, the potential cost savings if somebody would jump on to, you know, from family to opting out, what that would save the city in a in a year or from single to opting out. The opt out would would cost the city less in each case. um if they would do it. It's just a matter of what that price point is. >> That price point is >> it's 80% 70% something like that. But um and generally uh you know there's some I'll use myself for an example because my wife I have the opportunity to hop onto hers. >> Um but it would cost me $350 a month for me to be able to do that because my current employer, the city of Minatrista offers me health insurance. So um there's probably a lot of those nuances that are available. So, I think it's important like if they do hop off to get better insurance, there's some, you know, financial means that that could help. And >> it would be a win-win situation. Then the only question I would have and you'd have to look at it and the personnel committee can figure this out, but at what point, how many people can opt out before we're still covered? So, that would be the only question >> that right now that does not matter. The one thing that you know a consideration is what if we go back to a cop cooperative we would have to you know have have them come back onto our plan no matter what which is you know essentially a conversation when when you do the opt out they sign a sign an agreement saying that >> if and anytime the city changes their plan you you might be required to hop back on which might be you know disruptive to to that if you like a plan that I keep pointing at Gary cuz he's >> you know but if if you like the plan like you want to stay on your spouse's plan maybe it's better Um, and that might be disruptive. So, I think to me it's all about, you know, offering the employee the best opportunity to get the best healthcare. It's it's a very volatile, you know, industry right now and there's a lot of nuance and um, you know, we're maybe not always going to be able to offer the best plan out there just because of the price point. >> So, you're going to bring that back to the personnel committee and they'll come back with a po policy, right? There's two things they'll they're going to work on a policy for opting out and what what the person would get if they opt out. And then the other thing um we're going to wait and see what the unions want or end up getting if you will for um health benefit the dollar amount and then you'll bring that and then we'll hopefully be able to match that for all employees. That's always been our our historically that's what we've done >> so that everybody gets the same. >> Yep. And I would just circling back to the opt out, you know, I think we didn't really necessarily come up with if we were going to move forward with it or not. So if there's, you know, any I I don't know if there >> Well, I think if it's going to save the city some money, why wouldn't we? I mean, and then it's if you opt if you allow people to opt out and they opt out because they can get cheaper coverage, better coverage elsewhere, why wouldn't we do that? >> Well, couldn't that affect our rate if we have fewer people we're buying for? >> So, um, no, not if we're in the ACA small group plan. That's just an open market and it's a set rate no matter what. Once we get above 50 FTEEs, then it changes to a larger group plan, which then your experience levels come into effect. But right now, because we're less than 50 FTEES, we're at 43 technically um authorized. Uh and it'll be some time before we would get to 50. I imagine >> it'll be quite a while. >> That's not something there could be some regulation changes and things like that that we're not, you know, we don't get to say in. Um but right now, if it stays the same, then that risk is pretty low. Yeah. So, okay. So, I think you have some direction. Is that >> Yeah, I would say I'm looking at Peter because that means that, you know, I think I think at our next meeting we'll talk a little bit more about the opt out and see once what um what the group thinks is appropriate and then we'll bring potentially something back for the whole group to look at. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Um >> yeah, so I just had a couple slides to cap up. I think yeah, this was just um basically that same slide we just saw with the uh uh city of Wonia school district. So you can just see the tax bill. It's now 7,600 just because I think some of the projects and things they have going on >> in Wakonia. Yeah. >> So pretty much it it drives our percentage under 20%. Right. >> Well, I live in Wakonia. So really, you know, don't hear too much from like Hunter Crest or anything about our city. We don't really hear too much from too many people around the city about our city taxes being too high. At least I don't or um >> I I have another question. So when you do this chart, how much of our um how much the 22% 20% whatever it is, how much of that is salaries? How much do is is it 50%. >> I'd usually that's a pretty good guy. Is that uh the personnel services you know salaries and benefits is usually >> around 50%. >> Maybe slightly higher or whatever. So but um yeah know I think that's pretty good. >> Okay. That would be a nice I think um when you bring this back next time, bring back a chart with how much we're spending. I know public safety is almost 50%. So it can't be quite 50, but you know, just do us a chart so we can kind of see that. >> Yeah. And there's a couple different ways probably that you're referencing, mayor. I mean, one's probably like where where are dollars being spent like Yeah. public safety is usually 50% and public, you know, almost like >> but that includes salary. Yeah. Almost be like a >> where and then it's almost like a what type is it? salaries, it benefits, is it supplies, is it, you know, maintenance, util. Yeah, it's like almost groupings by what they call like object code, like you know, >> I just think it'd be interesting. I mean, we don't, you know, it's >> neither here nor there necessarily, but I think it'd be interesting to find out what do we pay out in salaries. I mean, total it just be interesting. >> Sure. >> Um, >> just in the general fund because we can Oh, I just sent myself an email. Sorry about that. [clears throat] >> Um, >> any any other questions? Yeah. So, um, yeah, then we pretty much just, uh, on this slide had a pretty good, uh, conversation on the labor contracts are being negotiated as we speak, you know, so that's going to be a big piece, the salaries and benefits. And then, uh, uh, the capital equipment improvements, um, that was in the packet, you know, as far as the, you know, squads and financial software and, uh, uh, Gary had a, you know, replacement item in his in his CIP. So those are all items that you know that departments have identified as as needs to you know do provide services to the city at you know to the best level. U sorry I got you. >> Uh so yeah and I know we usually talk about the payment management plan. So the plan there would be that you know to leave it at the 400,000 knowing that we've done a couple of the new debt levies there and then we've talked about the uh 40% for the fund balance policy there. So, um, >> where are we going to be at, do you think? >> I think right at 40% is, you know, I didn't try to be that exact, but I mean, I plugged in like $150,000 uh surplus for for 2026 based on that are building permits >> pretty much has exceeded by 150,000. So, I I pretty much just plugged that in and hopefully that'll even go a little higher. There could be some expenditure type items that could, you know, eb and flow, but I'm hoping we have a surplus of about 150 and then with our 2027 budget, it would keep us right at about 40% at the end of 2027. >> Okay. >> So, um, obviously we'll, you know, keep updating that over the fall as far as hopefully things keep trending in the right direction where um, that surplus can, you know, be at least at that if not better, you know. So, >> okay. And I mean this is, if I may, there's um we we have a PTSD uh officer claim in um and that that numbers the amount of money we've requested is like 115,000 and that's not included in the budget cuz we don't know if we're going to get it or not. So if we get if we get some of that, that'll help out with the surplus as well. Just, you know, >> okay, >> keep it in the back of your mind. >> So yeah, so hopefully we get some good positive levers we can pull or however you look at or bring in. So >> all right, good. Yeah. And then I guess just a summary, you know, we've talked about um this is the the initial draft uh levy option. So, um just wanted to get uh I guess council's feedback on the you know, the documents that were in the packet. Um does the levy seem good? Did the general fund budget seem good? The equipment plan? Um roads, I guess, everything. And if anyone else had any other comments? Well, it' be nice if it was less than be down to 11% would be but you know I guess um what I look at and I don't I know that you know 11 or 12% is really high but what I look at is what is the impact to a property owner and if it's $6 a month or 120 a year that seems reasonable um to me I mean most most people could afford that and um so I guess I look at what are what is our need, what do we really need and how do we keep our city going forward in a like it's been going. So >> the nice thing is that I know we've talked about it before that you know 11.7 what you know percent is really under 10 when you look at the growth is really taking you know 2.8 you know 3% of it. So for our existing residents whether that gives any solace or not I mean really what's to the home that's people that have been here it's really probably more of a you know 8 n% because you know if we didn't have any growth you know all the existing properties would be taking that 11 12% but when you have you know uh 75 100 new homes added to the pie you know they they take you know a few percent that >> spread out more. Um, do you know what some of the preliminary levies are? We don't really know from surrounding communities. I know that one of them is pretty high as surround [laughter] >> you run the gamut, right? I think if I may, um, you know, our friends to the north, Corkran have been known to set the the bar pretty high as far as the levies go lately, and I think they're they're kind of trending in that location or that same direction. But, um, I think you'll see some in the 20 percentile, you know, upper teens, 20s. You'll see some that are at six. Um, I know our our neighbor that we surround is looking at a pretty high levy increase comparatively what they from what they generally do year-to-year. >> Um, so I'm not sure where they're at preliminarily right now, but I mean, you're seeing a lot of movement. There isn't much of the 3 to 5% that I think was pretty standard precoid, we'll say. >> Yeah. Um you know I think mostly the average is generally probably that 8 n 8 to 12% I would say um with some outliers um on the top end more so than on the bottom side. >> Yeah. And even as far as looking at our our total levy in this run was you know 8.7 million that's below 9 million. I think some of our neighbors are in the 9 to10 million range whether it's >> that is similar like that are similar. Orino mound and Orino I think are >> I don't know where um Shwood is. Do you know? >> I think Sh's pretty they might be like where we are slightly higher. So yeah, I'd say we are definitely probably on the middle to lower end um from uh compared to our best comparables from what I would say. So >> yeah, and if you remember back to the audit presentation, I mean our per capita cost is probably the lowest in the area. So I think we're doing something's good. Not that we have to get up to the median, but I think optically I think you can say that Minitrista has low city taxes. >> Yeah. And if uh just to plant the seed and we do communications on what the levy is, if you're able to break that out like what what's growth versus organic increase, that would be awesome. >> Good good point. Yeah, good good idea. Exactly. >> Okay. Yeah, we try to >> Yeah, because I don't think people think about that. So that's that's I think >> it'd be different if we city had you know no new building permits you know you know then it's but that we do we basically brings it under 10% for sure right off the bat you know so and that brings it closer to the >> the 8 n okay >> yeah good point thank you logically 9% is better than >> I know I know I know and the thing is is I'm want to be careful not to you know not to try disguise it, but yet to make it real. You know, in other words, if it is 12, because we've had a 3% new home growth, it actually equates to more like nine nine. So, you know, that's that is being honest. That is being transparent. >> And I think the nice thing is we have tangible things we can point to. We've done a lot with roads the last several years. And there's things that we can say this is what we're spending your dollars on versus we're not just, you know, sitting on them or we're not >> we're providing, you know, good service. Good point because we have like 2 million in our road fund and we're not increasing our our road fund for 27 because of that. So yeah, >> because we have some yeah capital items and we're trying to you know obviously improve our you know police needs the new software for their reporting records management system and um there's you know obviously the finance software would be a nice thing to do in the next couple few years that could be you know better reporting for council and the citizens. So there's yeah different different things that are driving the the increase that I think will be beneficial. in time. So, >> anything else? So, are are we on the right track here? >> So, we're good. >> Yep. >> I think the unknowns are the union contracts and then ultimately what what we end up doing for um increases for um staff um other staff. So, all right. Um >> anything else? >> I guess. Yeah. Do you envision would we need to bring this back for a brief discussion at like the August 17th for both council or >> I think we need to wait until the union contracts are in place >> so that we know the numbers >> yeah I was going to say likely the union contracts won't be in place before the prelim levies needed to be adopted. So if there So I think we have we think we have good placeholders in the budget that can incorporate those wages. Like like I said the the the police officer union the wages the personnel committee is is recommending approval with what they've already discussed with me. Um the only piece out there is the insurance piece. So I I just so you guys are clear as far as timeline goes. I don't think you're going to see the all of the union contracts. >> Well then we don't need to do it on the 17th. >> Yeah. I think I think we're shooting for the um Grelin Levy adoption on the 9th of September. Um but if there's something more we want to talk about and you know if Kathleen's here on the on the 17th, I think she's going to be um if she wants to >> you know provide some input or something on the 17th. We have that kind of free meeting before we'd adopt it on the 9th >> or we can adopt it on the second meeting in September too. Sure. So, because I know we have we might have a pretty heavy schedule on the 17th >> or on the Well, >> yeah, I think I think the 17th is and the 9th. Um, but the prelim levies generally we we have it pretty much worked out by the time it gets to you guys, so there isn't much there. So, that that item won't take as long as maybe some of the other ones you're thinking of. >> Yeah. Yeah. I guess tenant would just plan on bringing that resolution to the September 9th with any further information or tweaks, but it might stay pretty standard to what you're seeing tonight or pretty close to what you're seeing >> and we'll continue to work on it throughout um September, October, November. >> Yeah. >> Because yeah, obviously on the final budget we've had years where some years it stays the same, some years it's came down a percent or two or or few or whatever. So it just >> and we'll we'll do a little more deep dive into it then as especially when we get closer if that's okay. Okay. All right. >> Okay. >> All right. Um let's see. I think that is um staff reports then. >> Um yeah, Madame Mayor, uh maybe I'll give a brief update on just future agenda items. Uh we're going to have a discussion at the work session about the ATV ordinance discussion. Uh or that's what it'll be called. um on the work session for the 17th. Um I will have a draft ordinance at that time if if and I and I'll probably put a placeholder um on on the business side unless you don't want to see that on the business side and just keep it on the work session. But if you want we we could have the opportunity to adopt something on the the 17th. I guess I'll look for direction on that. And then as we just talked about the 2027 preliminary levy adoption we have slated for uh September 9th. So, are >> we going to have any of the um planning issues? Um do you know, David, are we going to bring We don't know that yet. >> Uh for sure one will be here. Um uh the seg okay >> um tenatively the other one would likely be here as well. >> It depends on the traffic study. Okay. Okay. So, if the traffic study is done, so there's two developments. So the bowl property that came to the planning commission um the end um last Monday and then um there was some discussion regarding the um ingress and egress on um on the road from the road. So anyhow they're doing a traffic study. If the traffic study is finished and then Mandot has weighed in then we can maybe have that on the 17th. If the traffic study isn't done and we don't have a resol recommendation or whatever resolution from MDOT, we'll have to move it to the next one, right? >> Likely that that we'll have to talk with the applicants, but yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yep. >> How do you how do you arrange that? The traffic study who who does that? >> They've hired a consulting firm. The developer has >> the developer has to do that. Yeah. >> I think it is it SRF? >> You don't know. Uh they were working with them and nothing was finalized with them yet. >> Okay. All right. And then the uh segor property is um would be a comp plan amendment. >> Mhm. >> So that's that was at the planning commission too. So that would be coming forward. Okay. I don't think there were too many issues on that one. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Can I bring up something Jasper on um with regard to the the situation with the ATV and the UTVs? It specifically says in here um using it to go down to the lake and back it. It should be just using it briefly for whatever reason. If you're not on a lake, it's very specific about stating lake. I >> I think we should scratch the >> That would be fine. And then they'll bring it back and we'll discuss it. Let's do that at the work session. >> Um kind of go through it with a fine tooth comb, so to speak. >> Yeah, I'd like to have some input on that, too. But yeah, we we'll want to have some more discussion on that. And if need be, then if if we can all figure it out at the work session, we can bring it back on the 17th. If not, it'll have to come back then on the >> on the 9th. So, we we'll I we're going to do what we can. No, I understand that, but I fielding so many phone calls and they >> wanted to come tonight and I I said, "Wait till >> Yeah, >> we don't need to come tonight. We're not having a work session." So >> um >> so if we can work out some kind of um maybe work on some maybe alternate um wording versus lake something else keep lake in we can just the discuss not repetitive you know the the short amount of time I think is helpful and >> sure I like that >> and the dimminimous yeah use for [laughter] those with smaller lots >> I love that word [clears throat] >> okay thank you for that anything else then on any upcoming agenda? >> No. >> Okay. And then um any other staff reports? Do you need somebody at the August planning commission meeting? >> Someone. >> Okay. I will I can't go. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I do have one more thing. Brian was in my ear and I I should have brought it up ahead of time, but um the the residents on water accounts should have either received or will be receiving their first monthly bill um today or tomorrow. >> So keep an eye out for that. >> I got mine last week. >> Last week. Yeah. Wow. Okay. >> Wow. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So I think they went out on Thursday. >> Yeah. Basically depending on if you you view it online or if you the printed uh copy the the company info said they sent everything by late last week mailed it out. So yeah depending on how you get it you know whether it's electronic paper or both or whatever you should have it. So >> so yeah keep an eye out for that. We are you know fielding quite a few calls about just questions just because of the overlap of the yeah the transition from monthly or quarterly to monthly. So there's, you know, some lag in some of the the the the PSN, that's the company that handles the payments. They posted the monthly bill before you actually got the paper one, just because that's how they they work. So we got we were getting we're getting a lot of questions and and um the team is tracking all those questions and we can provide an update probably sometime here, maybe the end of August or in September to kind of just let you guys know how it's going. It's uh it's daunting how many how many calls there there have been and we have a we have a baseline for the the quarter quarterly bills. So um but hopefully this is the peak and then it'll just you know trickle down and and over month the few coming months it'll it'll get to be more normal. I >> think a lot of questions were just if they the quarterly bill was due August 15th and if they hadn't paid that now they get your monthly bill it's like what's my previous balance? Well it's just that they it was 45 days to pay now it's you know 15 20 days to pay. So once we get past like that August 15th, 20th, it shouldn't it's just those water, you know, users are just on that >> getting their monthly bill that should down or whatever. So >> So we still need somebody for the 24th. >> Peter said he can do it. Okay. >> Um and is there a park commission meeting too then? >> There will not be. >> Okay. So just uh 6:30 for planning, >> correct? >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Um any other staff reports? Otherwise, are there council reports? >> Nope. >> Uh [clears throat] well, just briefly, uh um at the Sarah Pioneer Creek wershed, I thought there was something interesting. They said that uh the um state agency which they call Bowser and I don't know what that stands for but um they had they've paused all the um uh payouts on things to kind of review everything and make sure that you there all that there isn't any fraud I think is really what they're doing. So I was really pleased to uh to hear that you know at this at the department level that they're taking that seriously. So, um, so I just thought you'd be interested in that, and I think we hashed over the personnel committee pretty well, so it's don't need to go over that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, a couple things. National Night Out is tomorrow. I will be joining um, Deputy Chief Cummings. Right. Okay. Anybody else going out? It's fun. >> I'll be at the Blink Cove one. >> Okay. Um and then also um I attended the um town hall meeting that Commissioner Anderson held um on the whatever 22nd of July or something like that. Um a few people were there. It was interesting. It was always fun to talk to people about Minatrista. So, [laughter] um, and then, uh, we also, um, Jasper and I along with the Shorewood mayor and Shorewood, um, administrator, along with Senator and Johnson Stewart and Mindot, um, we're talking about the Mindot corridor and funding. So, we're we're about $11 million short on the funding to add all of the roundabouts that we would like to see on on Highway 7. Having said that, I just want to make it clear. We weren't talking about moving the funding from um let's just say a roundabout in Shorewood to a roundabout in Minitrista. That's not what we were talking about. We just wanted we're talking about the timing as to when when we could when's the kind of drop dead date to get this additional funding. That was a a big question that we had. And so we've got a um there is a um grant application in to the Met Council for some of their TAB money and if we get that that would be we they would let us know the end of this year. But then there's a matching fund which we would hope that we could then get from the state um from their transportation dollars and that's one of the things we were asking uh the senator about and she thought that would be doable and mindot thought it would be doable too. So we'll kind of keep you posted on that. But then with our discussions with um the bowl property, we're talking with MDOT. This is a separate discussion now talking with Mindot about what would be the best strategy from Minatrista for um a roundabout or lights and that um that type of thing. That's why we're waiting on the transportation study that's being done by the Bull property and we're going to see what they have to say and we'll see where we can put where the best location would be for either a right now or future roundabout. So, we'll come back with more information on that. So, working on that. All right. Right. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? Okay. Um, anything else? was wondering, have we heard anything about the uh is it the uh Bosma? What is the property? >> That's the B property. >> B property. >> Okay, thank you. Yeah. >> Oh, I I think she may Are you asking about the cleanup? >> Oh, the cleanup. Yeah, the cleanup. >> That's Yeah. Um Basma. That's Basma. >> Yes. I can just give a brief brief update on this. And um we're going to check in on the property in early September and then report back to city council. So, uh, we'll see what condition it is, if they got everything cleaned up like they said they would by then. And if they they hadn't, then we'll have to reboot the conversation about abatement. >> Good question. >> Another question. Uh, what's happening in Jennings Cove with drilling the um pipe to uh relieve the water flooding problems? >> Um, Madame Mayor, I can answer that question. So that work was completed um a few months ago and by all reports everything's functioning well. So I haven't heard any complaints from the res. >> Yeah. >> Yay. >> Yeah. And then um chief I think we have a public safety meeting on the 5th. >> We do. >> Okay. Right. >> There's a mount if we're talking about meetings. We have a mound uh fire advisory meeting on Thursday morning. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm sure they'll at the next meeting there'll be an update on that and we should know the budget numbers um more clear clearly than from them. >> Sounds good. >> Anything else? Otherwise, um a motion to adjurnn is in order. >> So, moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Govern. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Miss Lacy. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes for Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. >> Good ideas.