uh 2025. First order I'm going to um say who's all here. We have uh Chief Squire's here, David Ael, Brian Grim, Jasper Krugal, myself, Lisa Whan, council members Kathleen Refkin, Peter Vickery, Claudia Lacy, Brian Govern, um Allison Falsky then and also Gary Peters and Paula Bowman. And then we also have Renee Newman. Hey, I got that right. And and Angela. Angie. Do you call Angela or Angie? Okay, Angie Bull. So, with that, uh, we have a number of items on the agenda. We have the 26 salary discussion, the water fund budget discussion, hard scrabble update, and then, um, the four-way stop at Lotus Drive Suns uh, Lotus Drive and Sunset. I'm going to hand this over to >> myself, >> Jasper first, and then after Jasper, if you have any questions of him, but I'm going to hand it back to um, Kathleen. she wants to make some comments and then we'll have discussion and so take it away. >> Yeah. U Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh members of city council, uh this is an item that was uh discussed a couple times at the personnel committee and as a reminder from the personnel committee is uh council member Ruffkin, council member Vickery. Uh so we had some good discussion. Um the assistant city administrator was also in I think on the second one of that one. So, um, but what we were discussing is, uh, just basically our pay plan in general, um, and more specifically to the 2026 budget is the cost of living adjustment that city council controls in that 2026 budget. So, in the memo, um, you can kind of see a brief history. In 2022, we adopted a pay plan um a compensation plan um that had a gradeep schedule very similar uh to some of our comparable cities. Um and and all the employees that are non-union are placed into that uh that grade step plan. Um you can kind of see how it how it works. There's 12 grades, 10 steps, and then based on the steps um each step is either between 2 and a half and three and a half%. Um the idea with that was to incentivize longevity um some of our more senior employees to incentivize getting to that 7 8 9 10 step. So um that's in the packet for you to look at. The one that you see in there is the 2025 um what happens in 2026 just so everybody's aware is uh whatever the cola is that the city council adopts all these numbers in this grid move up that percentage and then that's what the new new pay plan is for 2026. Uh what's in the budget? I'll um one more thing about the pay plan. uh the the target uh of where we want to be within our market. It was 90 to 110% and and part of the reason that we have 110% is because we have some um long long tenur employees that um we indicated that we wanted to you know make sure that the the pay plan got to that level so that they would be able to fit into that pay plan well um when we adopted it in 2022. Um the the one big aspect that we kind of or one metric that we look at uh as far as the annual review of the pay plan is where our employees fall within the market. And that's that kind of the average market or what percentage of the average market. In 2022 when the plan was adopted we were at 103%. So, that's looking at all of the employees that are non-union, where they're at compared to the other um comparable cities and comparable positions. Um, and that's basically been flat since then. Um, in 2025, it's we're at 102%. So, it's a little bit lower, but uh pretty much flat. Um, let me just kind of go through this. Uh our comparable cities if people are are looking at this um are generally Corkran, Dayton, Deep Haven, Madina, Mound, Orno, Shorewood, Victoria, Wakonia, Delano, and Weisetta. Um you kind of see they're kind of centralized in this west western metro kind of exerb area. Um with a couple exceptions, you know, Weisetta's a little bit in a little bit more and Wakonia's out a little bit, but they have their own kind of little economy going on over there. Um some of the data that was requested for you know us to us the developer find um is basically a little bit more of a deep dive into what other communities have on our comparable side as far as pay plans go what they're looking at for cola in 2026 and what they're looking at um for the step increases. Um, so I in in the packet you can kind of see that Corkran, Shorewoods, Spring Park, Dayton, Weisetta, Wakonia, Mound, Madina, and Minatrista are all kind of showcased here. All of those cities including ourselves have the gradeest step plan and all of them have um some sort of cola adjustment annually. And you can kind of see in here the differences um between those cities um kind of varies you know a little bit between you know 5 1/2 to 8 and a half or 9 and a half% something like that. Some of those like Wakonia I'll just point out have some market adjustments in them too. So um but for the most part it's a pretty pretty similar pay plan to what we have. Um also included is a piece of information that uh Brian got when he was at the GFOA conference. ABDO, a financial um institution that does kind of consulting for uh municipalities and other things. They they do a survey themselves. I've included that that has a lot of some of the cola stuff that that we've discuss that we're discussing tonight um from not only Henipin County communities, but kind of all over the state if you're kind of interested in that. It's just more more information. Um, I want to say the 3% cola that that's proposed has a cost of about I'd say what did I say in here? 63 $3,000 to total of which about half and half is between enterprise funds and the levy. So just if as you're talking about this um you kind of know what those metrics are and those levers that you can you can use. So, um, Council Member Refkin also included some some data that, uh, is in here kind of from the the spreadsheet that we use ourselves to kind of do the analysis. Um, I don't know, you can explain it probably better than I can if you want. So, that's that's basically the data that we we provided to the personnel committee. Um, from our perspective, you know, our general analysis year-toear, it's pretty much the same as last year. The recommendation is just to to keep it in that um keep the play pay plan going the way it is. Uh because of just where we're at in the market. It's pretty much where we are were in 2022 um and we're following. I'd say if you look at the data maybe a little bit behind some of the other communities that we compare ourselves to. So that that's all I have. That was the information that I provided to the the personnel committee. Um >> okay. >> And then yeah, there's some additional information I think council council member Ruffkin would like to talk about. >> Okay. All right. Um, so just overall, like I think Peter and I both agreed, like instead of calling it a cola, we should start calling it a market adjustment because it's really not a COLA. >> Yeah. Um, second, just so everyone on council's clear on this, like everyone, no matter job performance, anything, they get a step increase in July, unless they're already at step 10, and then they get a market adjustment January 1. That's how the pay plan's set up. It's not based on performance, longevity, and anything. It's just you move up every year. Um, I'm not recommending any changes to the actual pay plan. The steps, all that is the same. I'm not recommending any of that. Um, the reason that I started looking at this was that Jasper brought up some concerns about wage compression. And so then I started doing a deep dive into it. I looked at comparisons. I looked at all the information that I continued to ask Jasper for. Um, the biggest thing is if you look at the wages that since the pay plan has been implemented in 2022, they go up approximately 20 $200,000 per year without adding staff, which means by 2028, we will have added over a mill almost a million dollars in payroll without adding new staff. And I have for everyone the email that Brian sent me, which breaks that down. And I threw out obviously 20 the 24 to 25 was higher because we added it. But if you take out the new salaries, it's $200,000 per year without adding staff. That's a lot. I mean, that's that's a lot of money for a city our size with that it's all paid for by residents. um when you're looking at neighboring communities, that's great, but it's not really helpful because it's it's ours and what affects us. And if you look specifically at our pay plan, which starts on page 12 of the packet, we we're we're high. Um, all of the positions are within neighboring community ranges except for maybe chiefs, the director of public safety. But even those numbers are slightly skewed because some of them don't have a range like the low for say um South Lake or that's what SL is, right? South Lake. >> Y >> yeah. So their low is 84. So they don't have a range. So the scale just has the salary for both of those. So even that is slightly skewed. And in fact, a few of the positions such as the director of finance, the community development director, um, deputy chief, public works, senior planning, etc., they keep going, all exceed the max range, which if you look at starting on page 12, just for ease, the what I did is if you want to I don't know if you want to pull it up there so they can see it too, >> but um, so like for the first one for Jasper's actual wage is $83. The range for the average is the bottom line and I added a 3% cola just to blank it because some are doing less or more or whatever it might be. So that's the new range. And if you do a 1 or 2% cola to Jasper salary, he's still within the range. And that holds true for every single position. And it would hold true even with a 0% adjustment, which I'm not advocating, which I'm not saying. I'm just using it as a point of reference that everyone is paid really well over market in several positions and we can't sustain this long term. That's that's the big takeaway. We we can't keep we can't sustain it. Um the page 21 in the packet is where I broke down the differences. So um the current page pay scale 22 is a 1% market adjustment. Page 23 is a 2% market adjustment and then page three would be the 3% market adjustment. Um I I think we need to take a hard look at whether or not we can afford to keep doing a 3%. I I don't personally think we can. When I saw the numbers that's when I told Jasper I'm like we need to bring it to council. It needs to be on a work session. Everyone needs to look at it and everybody needs to see what it is. Um, and then I did so which isn't in the packet because I just did it today because my brain just doesn't shut off. If we do the 3% if we do the 3% cola so Jasper like just the top grade 12 step 10 it's currently at 88.85 85 if we do a 3% that's what would be Jan one then in July with another with step increase assuming it the top salary just the bottom corner one goes up to 9151 like that it's it's a lot of money and it it's just compounding. So it's not about the levy it's not about the $21,000 it's about the compounding of it as it keeps going and $200,000 a year in salary increases. I don't know, Peter, you want to add some because you've been privy to all of my ramblings at the personnel committee. >> I don't know if I can comment quite such detail, but appreciate you doing all the detail. Um yeah, I mean I I think uh the last few years there's been um quite a u increase in inflation and so uh wages have gone up quite a bit and um I think that uh we responded very well to that that I think um years past we behind uh and now I think we're solidly uh there in fact as you point out we're maybe a little ahead of the game. So, um, so I I feel like we're in a good spot now. Um, but I I think, yeah, if we continue at this rate, we are going to, uh, incur just costs we can't afford and and, um, I think we'll actually be ahead of, uh, uh, everyone else. So, um, so I that's my my concern that it just, uh, that if you compound at 6% a year, that that's just point out. Well, let's let's do this because um you're looking, you know, 3, four, 5 years ahead. Um I think um and these are a lot of numbers and I don't necessarily disagree that we can't keep doing this, but what we have to look at is the current market and where are we at in the current market? In the current market, we're at 101%. So, we're right No, let I get to finish. I get to finish. Um um so we need to look at where we're at in the current market and where is our competition and who are we who so if we have an opening in in in one of our departments who are we up against you know because there aren't as many people applying for these jobs that used to be. We used to get, you know, 20 years ago, seriously, when we had a job opening, we would get 15, 20 people. And I see Paula, you understand that this is how it used to be. You'd get 15, 20, 25 people applying for the same position. And of those people, you'd have five or 10 people that were qualified, uh, you know, wellqualified. Today, we're lucky if we get two qualified people. And we just went through this with with Alli's position and we ended up with you know a number of uh applicants and of those applicants we really only we narrowed it down to two and that's what our choice was. So we need to be careful that we don't uh position ourselves outside of quality and I'm going to emphasize quality employees. I don't I think what we should do is I think we need to look at our steps and our step increases versus our cost of living or what whatever you want to call it, our market adjustment because I think that's where you can maybe uh do some some negotiating if you will. I think this year we should do the cola the 3% because when I look at every other community in the area Henipin County and across the state most about 90% of them are doing 3%. But I do think we could take a look at our steps. Maybe we want to maybe we the 2.5 is extended to 5 years or six years or I don't have it in front of me. Um and then the the 3% is extended up to eight years and then the 3.5 is just for the last two years or adjust it some other way. But we c we need to stay current because number one most important I think we have a fabulous staff. We really do. our department heads all the way from from uh you know Darcy at the front desk to to David and and and our department heads and and Gary and and we don't see what they put up with every day and we don't see the workload that they do but I know that they do a fantastic job and we can't >> very well they are and and that's not going to change if if you adjust the cola today but if we take a look at the step increases and make make some adjustments there. You're going to actually save more money, but you're still going to give them the cola and you're still going to give them the steps. It's just not going to be the same as what it is today. We need to stay We need to stay in the market. I think if we adjust it too much, we're not going to be in the market anymore. >> So, just one comment on that because I did look at step increases. I I have You can ask Jasper. I probably have like 10 different spreadsheets with different steps and different increases on that. that's more of an impact to their salary and keeping them in the range. The the easiest way or not the easiest the less impactful way to keep us still in this 90 to 110% range is to decrease the market adjustment in January instead of redoing all the steps. Because if you do the steps then someone who thought they were going to be making someone sorry. Um so like you have someone who thought they would be making like um Darcy. We'll take her. So she's at $32. Next if okay this this she doesn't have the cola in it but so next year she'll go up to $33. Now, if you change the scale of the 2.5 and push that longer, now that pay doesn't go there. That your end amount gets lower and then they're going to see that more. So, that's that's more of a hit to the employee instead of a one time 2% market adjustment instead of a 3%. And then we look at it again and go, look, we're still in this 90 to 100 10% range. Everyone is still paid well. And the biggest thing that I saw when I did that is if we do less than 3% almost everyone is still within the min and max range of all the neighboring communities. And as we saw with Paula, our scale, our steps are good. They line up. The min and max range for the most of them are great. They don't have to be adjusted. They're fine. But what you're doing is you're penalizing those individuals that have been here a long time and that have reached their max. Now they don't get the 3%, they only get 2%. And we all know, we all know that inflation is far more than 2%. And we also know that those individuals that have reached their max do a fantastic job. >> They do a fantastic job though. If I may, I yeah, I I think that is a a problem with this uh pay scale uh that we need to solve too, right? You have these long-term employees are extremely valuable and and yet they're not getting these step increases uh you know that they've maxed out that and so to your point, you know, they're just getting the u market adjustment. So I I think that's something we need to address too to to make sure that we keep you know th those people and so the kind of the other side of the discussion I guess is uh how do you keep longer employees incentivized? >> Okay. Um Brian >> I just had did one math question. So the raises are split between the cola and the step. So like on page three where it adds them just adds them up saying like 3% cola plus 3% step is 6% increase. It's actually a little bit more than that because you're getting a raise on the previous raise. >> Good point. Um it's yeah simplified for this because it varies depending on how much the wage is too a little bit. Um but yeah it does compound. Um, yeah, one I think you guys have all had really good points. Um, I think, you know, I'm I'm fairly new here. I can still kind of say that at three and a half years, but the employees that we've had that have been here a long time are something that I think we have to treat as a treasure, you know, because um you know, it would be I don't know, we we've seen it. I think we've seen it a few times where somebody leaves um we end up hiring somebody paying more for less experience and that's kind of the cycle that we want to avoid. So that's, you know, how much do we want to um emphasize that retainment piece of our pay plan? And it's really hard to like as Peter alluded to, like we we, you know, we don't want to disincentivize that. That's kind of why we have the pay plan structured the way it is, but how do you you know keep them interested in being here long continue to be here, right? They might not want to and they might want to go to a bigger city or something like that. we can't offer those kind of wages. But, um, that's really h the the the um tough thing to crack is, you know, how do you make it equitable to all people that are in the pay plan for the non-union side? >> And this may be a silly question since I've never uh worked in government, but um are merit raises in a government setting not a thing? >> Not a thing. No, you can do it, but it's not >> it you you you can do it. Um so where I came from previous to this we had merit-based pay. The biggest challenge with that is you have a department with maybe one person in it and you say okay department head you have this much to give to your you know kind of like the private sector you can divvy up but you only have one person so that one person knows they're going to get whatever the average is whatever you know so it ends up being very similar to what we do right now. Um but and in areas like with Gary where he's got multiple employees. They're union. So it's a different contract. So we're really only talking about n about 19 people. Okay. >> Um for the non-union side. So that even gets that group smaller for the merit based pay. You know, theoretically, yeah, great. If you do a great job, we're going to pay more. But at the end of the day, if we only budget, you know, 5 a.5% for merit and cola, well then you just get five and a half% if you're the only one in that department or less. You know, you could get less. So it's effectively not merit in just a >> it's hard to do in a small organization. >> But the other thing we're not looking at is the step increase doesn't come in until the m midy year. So you're not getting 3% or 3 and 1/2% or whatever that step increase is 2 and 1/2 or three and a half you're not getting that for the whole year. So basically if you were to spread it out for the whole year you're only >> you're only getting out you're only getting one and a half or one and a quarter. So for the year for the whole year. So, I mean, that's the other thing to look at, too. But >> so, it's somewhere between if it'd be five and a half to six and a half, it'd be somewhere between there total. Um, it wouldn't be exactly one of those. So, >> yeah. >> Um, so I think, so here's the thing. Um, I think we need to look at um the salaries annually, but I do think it is extremely important and I'm just sorry to pick on you, David, but we need to keep people like David and and Nick because of our grow growth and development and they've been here a long time and and they know the city and they know our ordinances and and they know the developers that want to come here. That's invaluable. And I don't want to um say, "Well, you only get 2% because you're already at the top of your your range." They may be at the top of their range, but they are worth it. And I I I honestly I mean, I can't tell you how I I I was here when we didn't have such good city planners, and I can tell you it it caused problems. And we've had some good ones over the years, but right now between Nick and David and and Robert and um okay, what Gary, whatever. Ryan. Okay. Um we have a fantastic planning department. I mean, there's no doubt about it. I get calls from people saying, "Oh, I talked to Nick and they were he was just fantastic. Oh, I talked to David. They were so helpful." So, please keep that in mind. And I can't tell you how much I appreciate Gary. I mean, he we were just talking about the that give him a lot of lot of grief and you know, so keep keep that in mind. And you know, and I just I just if we have to pay them a little bit more than the going rate or than the than maybe what Mound pays them, um I I for this year, I really think it's worth it. I don't disagree that we need to take a look at at the overall thing overall um way we're doing it and there's some changes I think could could occur. Um, so if I could suggest we go with staff's recommendation for 2025, we give this back to the uh personnel committee and they come back with with something that we can have more time to digest and and that they address some of these issues. I agree. We can't sustain maybe 250,000 every year. I agree. So, let's figure it out. Let's figure out how we can stay um in the market and how we can um reward our our good long-term employees and how we can also manage the budget a little bit. >> Just again, I'll reiterate this. This solves this problem. It keeps us in the market. They're still going to get a raise. It It's not >> But like David is only going to get 2%. >> Yes, but David, no offense again, David, he's already paid over market. We can't keep paying. >> You know why? >> On over market because in >> years I was paid under market. >> Yes. >> Exactly. >> Exactly. Yeah. And not only that, but he's being paid over market because we wanted to keep him. >> I understand that >> we needed to keep him. >> But we have to look at the overall finances for the city. >> But we are we are okay. So we haven't heard from Claudia. you know, as a newer council member, I and as a person that looks at every dollar. Um, again, it's like a little bit of an uncomfortable situation. You just said something that was meaningful. You were underpaid for years. I I didn't know that. Um, is do you is that correct? >> That's 100% correct. >> Well, thank you for saying that. because it's information that I didn't have 10 seconds ago. Um, but again, that's a lot of money for this council, for this city to be coming up with every year, but we want to How much does it cost to and time and effort to hire new people? I hear what you're saying, mayor. Yeah, >> thank you. you've been here a long time and you know so again but everything that Cath Kathleen says makes sense I mean is this something we it's always going to be uncomfortable to talk about this um do we bring this up every year and look at each year we're doing well as a city right now you know uh I I I this is tough I don't know >> it is a tough decision and I understand um Kathleen's position about in and your position looking at every dollar that we spend. I absolutely do. >> Sorry, may may I add one more thing, mayor, just really quickly before it falls out of my head. Um not everybody gets a raise every year or you know not everybody gets a cost of living increase every year. I mean >> well other but we have to compare ourselves to other cities you know because >> um again as as we know um people are offered jobs from other cities and and if they want to leave they're going to leave if if they don't feel appreciated and they don't feel that we're paying them. No, I'm not I'm not disputing that that David or that that others there are a few other people I know there's Lori that gets that's also if you will say overcompensated, but it's because they've been here so long. That's one of the things. And so all I'm saying is I would rather pay them more and cut in other areas so that we can continue the a high level and quality service that our residents demand and want and deserve. That's where I'm coming from and that's what we can do. >> Where would you give me a few suggestions as to where would where cuts would come from? >> Well, first of all, what you see what staff is being proposed is in our budget. Okay, that's already there. So, we wouldn't really have to maneuver money around, but we will have to when we talk about the 16th officer and that's and so I've already talked to um staff about that and they have to come back and tell us where we could maneuver some funds around. >> So, but for this purpose, it was already budgeted. Maybe just for one more piece of context, we have had wage freezes here in my time and Angie and David, there has been where we've gotten zero or 1% before. So, we haven't been immune to that in the government sector at City Ministrista. >> Thank you for that. >> So, >> I don't agree. I think we should do a 2%. >> Okay. All right. And so, what will um I think that's fine. I mean I I understand. Um where do um Brian? >> Yep. >> Yep. >> No additional questions. >> Okay. Um any >> I think we should do the 2% too. I also think we need to think about the long-term employees and see if we can maybe change the plan to, you know, address their their continued growth. So >> okay, >> uh >> we have like 20 options. We can have a really long personnel committee meeting. >> Looking forward to >> I would say 2% as well, right? >> I guess it's plurality already. Uh I I think your argument is compelling that um you know, we probably need to look at this with a a fresh lens. Um I mean, if it's budgeted, it's budgeted for that. And uh I guess I would rather make sure that we're taking a long deep look at it rather than kind of shooting from the hip if that makes sense. >> So if we've uh we've budgeted for this year, I I think the what is budgeted is is sufficient for this year, then we'd revisit it next year with a more um a longer deeper thought of it. Well, I'm for the 3% and I'm for revisiting or or doing a deep dive next year so that we can come up with a a really good plan to address a deficiencies um in with the current plan, meaning also the deficiency of maybe trying to figure out how we're going to continue or not continue with the huge increases. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from. So I think this is on our regular agenda or will it come back? >> It is and we're just we were just we're looking for direction so that you know as the budget continues to move forward in in December we have something that we can plug in. Um one question I have is if there's an appetite at all to do any sort of um you know pay plan compensation study. One thing I will note, we do have four union contracts coming up next year that need to be settled before 2027 that will be part of the 2027 budget. So, there's that piece, too. Um, kind of stemming from the original conversation about wage compression. That's um on the police side, that's one of our biggest concerns is the compression between the sergeants, the deputy chief, and the chief. Um, there's substantial overlap between the sergeants and the and the deputy chief. That's up to like 80% overlap between those two positions and they're they're quite different between the two, you know, the sergeants and the deputy chief what they do. So, I want to see if there's any appetite. >> Come back with tell us how much it would cost because I think in order to to be competitive, we need to find out what other cities and how how we compare. >> Don't we already have that? >> I don't know. >> I mean, we've got spreadsheets of what everybody is paying. So, I mean, I don't think we necessarily need to do it unless there's some drastic change in the market, but based on everything that we've reviewed over the last three months, it doesn't seem that our pay scale is off. >> Well, we should we should have a >> correct. So, you say I have >> we have the data together, >> if I may. I think I think it might be um looking at the pay plan itself to see if there's a way I think I've heard some comments about trying to figure out a way to incentivize longevity maybe a little bit differently than what we do right now. >> Um it'd be we have the data, you know, the data is pretty accessible, especially for our comparable cities. I think it'd be like is this paid plan structure what we want it to be and does it accomplish what we want to do? That's something I think you can work out with the personnel committee. I mean, yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, this will come back um I'm assuming it won't be um on a consent agenda item since there might be a split vote. So, you'll have to bring it back at a regular meeting for approval. Yeah. >> Right. Okay. That >> All right. Okay. Um next is our water fund budget discussion. Can we do you think Okay, real quick. How long is that going to take? [Laughter] >> Take five minutes. It could take 50 minutes, I guess. Or I mean, I'm thinking closer to the >> 5 10 20 I guess. Or >> I could just ask my questions now and that'll >> I mean if everyone read the packet I don't really need to go >> okay anything. I mean >> okay. >> Yeah. So 20% and then 20% and and I think it was 15% and so on. Okay. >> So the 20 and the what happens if we have a wet season and we don't have it like that's been my concern the whole time is we're banking all on everybody using a lot of water but like I didn't use as much water in quarter three. I mean I was it sounds bad but I used less than 25,000 gallons in quarter 3 and I usually use more. So like >> Yeah. No, I mean that is the the the risk. >> Yeah. I mean, do we need to bank in, like we said before, a a fee just for the treatment plant? >> Yeah, >> because I'm I'm I I'm very scared about relying 100% on water sales and water connections. >> I guess that would be that for the council to decide if they'd want some more B. You know, we have the base rate that's 40 bucks now that, you know, it's 49 proposed for next year. Um, but yeah, whether there's any type of additional treatment fee. >> So, a couple what if we Okay. And I I was thinking of a some kind of a treatment plant fee, but then I don't know how many calls we would get, how much kickback or you know push back we would get. But but I think it it's more fair because everybody needs a treatment plant. I mean everybody needs it. But then the other question too as part of this discussion is I think and I've heard from a number of residents um that they think we should be going to um monthly billing. I've been saying that for five years. >> So I think I well it's well maybe maybe not but I do think we need to build that build that into and maybe and I was talking with Jasper um sorry ladies but um maybe just going a part-time billing person or utility billing person for now. see how that goes and then if it has to work into a full-time, we can add that. But maybe start at part-time, but doing monthly billing for the water um users, not for um the uh rural area where they, you know, that would be stupid to do monthly billing because it's $45 a quarter. Now all of a sudden you're going to send out cards for what? 12 bucks or, you know, 15 bucks. I'm sorry, but no. But I'm sure we could quite easily uh figure out who to bill on a monthly basis for water and sewer. Then they also would get a fraction of the storm sewer and and uh um recycling. I honestly think we absolutely need to do that next because what I've heard too, and I think this is to your point, Kathleen, then people can see on a monthly basis what their water usage is and they can ratchet back, they can add more, whatever. They can make those adjustments. Plus, they don't get this $5 or $600 bill. Every three months they get it. They get a $200 bill every month. I mean, so I think that should be part of the equation. I really do. >> If I may, um, we did an initial analysis of this maybe two years ago. I think I think staff would like to maybe talk to other staff to see what kind of bandwidth is available and then we can come back. If the direction is, hey, we want to do monthly billing. I think then we could kick it back to staff and then >> I think we want to do monthly billing. >> Yeah, I agree. Okay. So, we're not kicking it back. We're just saying we want >> Let us figure out what kind of bandwidth we have and then we can come back and at the next um water budget update we can just kind of say, hey, you know, we think we can do this with probably a part-time or we think whatever it is. >> And can we electronically bill people? And so it doesn't have to be a >> there there is that option already. >> I mean that sounds like >> so people just have to sign up. >> Yeah. incenting people to sign up. >> Yeah, >> we could look at that. Um, we could do we could do some a bill credit or something like that. I've seen that done before to get people to sign up. >> We we want the money. We need the money. >> There's quite a few that bunch of >> I don't know what the saturation is >> calling everyone. So that's one thing. Um, so and rather than, you know, here's the thing. Rather than ha calling it, let's not I'm not trying to be not trying to disguise it, but maybe what we need to do to Kathleen's point is maybe we need to raise the base fee. Maybe the base fee needs to go up versus a treatment plant fee. >> That's fine. >> Because, you know, I think when people I don't know. I mean, it it's kind of one and the same, but or maybe we just bill $50 every month as a base fee versus because it's $50 a quarter now, right? >> It's going to Yeah. What's proposed? >> Okay. So, rather than $50 a quarter, maybe it's $50 a month. I don't >> You'll have to figure out maybe what we need for a base fee, but um I don't know. probably if we're going to add a flat fee, probably would be better to do just the base rate because I think anytime you add an additional fee, right? >> I think people don't like that. The only other comment I mean the monthly billing will be fine. You know, we'll figure that out, but >> I don't think it's going to be a panacea for everything. I mean, what >> I don't think it's going to just help and make everything go away by going to monthly billing. I mean, so we shouldn't be fooling ourselves. No, I I know that >> you pay it $2,000 in semianual, quarterly, monthly, you're still paying $2,000 for water. So, >> yes, but the shock would be a lot less than a $700 bill. And, you know, >> I I' I'd rather get a $900. >> I'd rather get a two or $250 bill every month versus a $800 bill once every quarter. I mean, something whatever. I mean, you you two are on water. I mean, you >> I've said monthly billing since I moved here, >> Brian. >> I I like the idea. My first year here, I I think I had a $3,000 water bill for the summer. Um, but I like the idea of having a broad base because I know my water bill for the last two summers was like $300. >> And so clearly that's a good chunk of change the city's not getting. >> Yeah. Right. So, um, look at look at the, um, base rate and, um, or Yeah. and see if we should adjust that a little bit. What would that do? Um, >> okay. We're probably still going to have to raise the rates by probably 18 to 20%. >> No, I I I now >> you're saying in addition >> Yeah. I I It's not that I don't want the rates to go up. I understand why they need to, but we also need to bank on people using less water with the rates going up. >> Yeah. >> I mean, >> yeah. And I had a question, too, because it looks like this year we're about 25% below what the revenue is. >> Yeah. It'll probably be closer to like 1.5 1.6. It >> the way it it gets reported sort of a cash base and we we go to acrruel based on third quarter isn't really reflected in that year-to- date amount yet >> because it said through September. Okay. >> It is but it's basically the cash amounts received through September. So the bills just went out the door >> and they're not 17. >> That's 600,000 that was just build here in third quarter will be basically paid between now and November 15. >> Okay. So it's actually maybe a little ahead. Is that what you're saying? >> No, I think we'll be a little >> behind because basically we'll get another probably like 600,000 between now and year end or whatever. Um, >> okay. >> Is what I'm projecting. So, we might be like 100,000 or so light compared to budget based on the wet summer. >> Okay. >> So, to my point, we can't rely on the usage fees to cover. >> Well, and not only that, but the um school is is probably also cutting um their usage because they have their own well for their irrigation now. So, um, that's also impacting us. >> Well, and if we have a real slowdown in construction, I know we built that in for next year, but if the following years we have that and we're expecting what, four and a half% growth that, >> you know, that could could really slow. So, I I think having a base higher base makes sense. Okay. might I know we'll get a lot of phone calls on it, but >> we'll have a town hall and it'll just be full of people who want to learn all about the longer theater can take the darts. >> Gee, thanks. Also, >> we have an open bar for that one helps. No, but I think to uh what I would like to say um before January. So for instance, so if we do um uh monthly billing probably they wouldn't get their monthly bill until February, right? >> Depends on if you implement it in winter or spring or summer or how >> I think we need to start implementing it if >> I mean how quickly can we implement it? I mean, I'm not saying like >> we'd have to go through it and and talk to Banyan and see what it would take. We've looked at it a little bit. I know >> the biggest is like you said earlier, the third quarter. So, I mean, I don't think anyone really says much in the first quarter, second quarter, next year. be obviously the you know third quarter of >> but I but it' be good to start implementing it as soon as possible because once once the um costs for the treatment plant hit us in 2027 is that the first year or is it do we have to make a payment in 26? >> It'll be our first we'll have an interest payment I'm thinking in 2027. >> Okay. >> 2028 will be our first full year payment. >> So we still want to kind of put some funds in the bank. >> Yeah. We want to start it. We want to start building up that fund balance so that if we have a dry a wet year and we don't sell as much water, >> then we have some wiggle room there. So I I think as soon as possible, >> well, I think the money would get there whether we build it quarterly or monthly or whatever, but it's more Yeah. Do you want to increase the rates for 26 and in in uh >> get ramping up for I and I assume we do and I think that's what we have presented. But yeah, >> but yeah, I don't think it's more of a C. It's to have the cash ready for 2728 like you're saying or whatever. >> So, um, so if our ne our first payment is in 27, do we have to have to ramp it up 20% in 2026? Can we ramp it up 15% and then ramp it up 20% and then you know what I'm saying? >> We could I mean, I guess it's probably I don't know. Can you when you come back with all the information, can you bring us an actual um bill and say, "Okay, this is what people are doing right now." So, here's a few examples. >> I think I have one >> and then just say with a 20% increase, this is what their bill would look like and >> medium usage. >> Yeah. And then this is what a 15% increase. So that we can kind of visualize it. I just to me took it out once I see dollar numbers versus percentages, it kind of is a little more realer. >> Yeah. >> And it's going to vary based on >> usage >> the month too. Um give you the ad. We kind of Brian and I sat down and did this where we kind of broke it down by quarter. >> Okay. >> Um and what that quarterly bill would be for Q1, two, three or four. Um we could kind of look at it on a monthly basis too and make some estimations. >> Okay. >> Well, yeah. And if you can project like if we like for the base rate if that goes to like >> excuse me >> $75 a month can you project what that income would be then? >> Um >> yeah based on the number of accounts we have I guess times. >> Yeah. And do like a $50 a month, a $75 a month and $100 a month just so we can gauge like what >> what guaranteed revenue usage or >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Any other do you do you need any more direction? Do you where are we all in agreement here? >> So monthly billing is thumbs up from everybody or most people. >> Um and then we're going to just try to figure out some different options for rates using the base fee. You know, move that around and then adjust the the rates accordingly. So, >> you know, higher the base rate, the lower the maybe increase for the percentage of the of the fees are and you know how that moves around. See if you guys can figure out the sweet spot where you want it to sit. And then once we've decided on these new rates, um I really would like to send out a postcard separate from anything else, but a postcard to all of the water users telling them we're going to monthly billing, the rates are increasing, why the rates are increasing, >> how much the treatment plant is costing, >> and and and it's not just that treatment plant. It's, you know, it's we still have debt from the other treatment plants. So, and maybe that would help some of the phone calls because I don't want to, you know, I know that Renee and Darcy are going to get inundated with these calls and um I'm sure they would appreciate any information that's out there previous to when they get hit with the new bill. >> Yep. I think I think we have you had mentioned this to me before and we had talked with A2S and and you know, we're going to get something out. I think if everything moves forward and tonight the plant gets approved um it'd be in November. Send something out in November. >> Okay. >> A newsletter um to all >> but if we do a newsletter then it's kind of buried in that newsletter. >> So >> it would just be a water water newsletter. That's it. Just strictly about water like a one pager. Yeah. Something like that. No no other city stuff in there. It' be separate from our >> messenger and things like that. It would just be for water to the water users. So >> All right. Sounds good. All right. All right. Um then >> hard scrabble >> um hard scrabble update. >> Yeah, >> this is the fun one. >> This is the fun one. So I've been um and I didn't put much into in the packet because there's ongoing conversations between myself and the um settlement agreement person. Um so here's what the what he would like to see. Um and I've talked to him. I think this would be fine. It's almost full circle from what we originally intended to do. So um it's interesting. the the only addition is really uh the sign. Um so he he would like to install a sign at the entrance, one single sign at the entrance of Hard Scrabble Circle that basically just says construction parking prohibited. That's it. Um we would then remove all the existing no parking permanent signs. Um we would send a memo to the neighborhood describing the settlement agreement terms and the construction parking expectations. Um what that does is it kind of it puts the onus on the residents to self-report. So, if there's an issue, somebody will call us. Um, it it would probably be Mr. Smith calling us if there's an issue. Um, but so it would it would it wouldn't be our our police. It's kind of pulling the police out of the whole equation except in a situation where the road is blocked and emergency personnel can't get through. >> Like really blocked or someone's definition of blocked >> like 20 feet or less >> is what his definition is. NFPA stand the fire protection standards 20 feet or less is what he said. So, um, but tips or violations would be processed through city hall. So, they'd come in, somebody would call, and then it'd go to the building department. The building department would then talk to the permit holder, try to figure out and say, "Hey, as a reminder, you need to get your your people, you know, in and out as quickly as you can if you are going to do that." So, it's more simple. It's kind of how we intended to enforce it in the from the beginning minus the sign, you know, but the sign doesn't give the police any authority to write a ticket for anything. >> Well, that's meaningless then. >> So, but the idea is he's okay with the police not writing tickets and the building department contacting the contractors. >> But that doesn't help you when you're trying to go home and you can't get home because the road is blocked. But the police could go then >> they could if the road is blocked definitely the police could get called in. >> The police can write a ticket >> for that for sure. >> They don't have to go knock on all the doors at 10:00 at night to find the person who moved their car. >> It depends on how nice they want to be probably. Um but uh they they could just they could if if a if a car is blocking a road, they have every right to tow that car immediately because it's a hazard to everybody safety. >> When we tow a car, where does it go in Minista? >> And who does it and how far are they away from being >> it? It goes to Madame Mayor, members of council goes to Williams Towing. So, here in town. >> Where are they located? >> Uh, just off Highway 7, just across from Buddy Boy on the >> Oh, marvelous. >> Yep. >> Would this include uh people that are like lawnmowing and things like that or >> No, so they they would be exempt. So, day laborers or however you want to categorize them, um they they are exempt from this. They'd be able to park. So, that's going to be the problem. I mean, it's it's always going to be a problem who's doing what. Um, one of the complaints that we had this year was a tree service that was parking on the road. Well, if a tree service is there, that could be going to some individual's property. >> We' do our best to reach out to the contractor and say, "Hey, you know, is this your contract subcontractor or whatever, tell them they can't park on the road. They have to park on site." So, um, >> it's to me it's a better solution than putting up a bunch of signs or having the police going out there patrolling all the time. um it kind of puts the onus on the residents to to self-regulate this um and we'll see how it works, but it seems like this would be an adequate um >> way to to approach the settlement agreement from this individual's standpoint. >> Chief, what do you think of it? >> Uh I think it's a good idea. I just because we we didn't have a lot of teeth before. So, from a legal standpoint, we were kind of a I don't want to say a paper tiger, but we were mostly just asking people to move the vehicles. So, short of them being in the no parking zone that was already marked where we could issue a ticket, um there wasn't much we could do. So, um I think this is a good solution. Um >> but you don't have to go out every single day. >> Yeah, that's great to >> correct, >> you know, the troll. So, that was that was a real huge um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, the only way the police really get involved is if there's a road blockage of some sort, then that's when somebody could call 911 and say, "Hey, my road's blocked. Get somebody out here." >> All right. >> Great. >> That sounds great. >> Well done. >> Yeah. All right. So, so we won't be doing the ordinance. Um, we won't be doing any sort of public hearing or anything like that. We'll try this, see how it works. >> Okay. See if Okay. Hopefully, it solves the problem. All right. Um, good. Good job, Steph. Um, discuss installation of four-way stop at the Lotus Drive in Sunset Lane. >> Um, Madame Mayor, members of council, we have Allison Fowski. She's she's going to talk about this. Gary, you might give some input as well. >> Yeah. Um, thank you, Mayor and Council. So, uh, over the past month, staff has received numerous complaints of um, site visibility issue at the intersection of Lotus Trail. Um, and then Sunset Lane is to the north and Wolfbury Curve is to the south. This is the location of the intersection. Um so on the next slide, um I show the I show the issue as you see uh as you're driving travel traveling westbound on Lotus Drive. Uh so there's three monuments uh that weren't shown on the plan. Um the plan that was submitted with the development is is a clip of it. It's on the left there. they showed that there would be um you know in the in the middle part that there would be some some landscaping. So there's certainly um been some more work that's been done at the intersection than we originally anticipated. Um and then on the next slide I show uh the eastbound Lotus Drive. And so that the area of concern is on the left side of this of this photo. You can see that there's some trees. Um it you kind of have to squint a little bit, but you can see the the stop um um sorry, not the stop signs, the street name signs um just where that white house is on the on the right side. Um and then Sunset Lane would be on the left. So uh we've got a curve coming through there. And then you can see here this is looking from Sunset um Lotus Drive to the to the um well into the picture there. Um so you so we have some sighteline issues through there. I did have uh we talked to the res or the police department talked to the resident there at the corner of Sunset and Lotus um about some of the trimming back some of the the grasses decorative grasses that were a little high and they did that. Um but beside that beside that issue, um I did have a traffic engineer take a look at it from a stopping site distance. All the all the technical components of it and the recommendation from the traffic engineer was to install a four-way stop due to this the um uh stopping distance or the sight line distance. >> Thank you. Um, so with that, um, we wanted to bring this to council, um, just because, uh, from a staff standpoint, we do get, uh, depending on the year, you get requests for stop signs. So we don't want to put put these up intermittently, but we also do want to take a look at it from from these standpoints when we do have a technical expert take a look at it and bring it to council so so that we have good documentation on um if if council approves it later on um this evening, why th that stops condition was installed. Um, and so, uh, if if that's something council's willing to consider, uh, this is, uh, this graphic shows the proposed, uh, stop, uh, the proposed signage that would be put up. So, we already have a stop condition on Sunset Trail and Wolfbury Curve. And so, stop new stop signs would be installed on Lotus Drive. And then um stop ahead signs would be installed um on Lotus Trail just to notify uh drivers that there's a that there's a change in traffic uh traffic control ahead of time. So or ahead of ahead of them. So uh with that I would be happy to answer any oh one last thing. Um cost of this uh would be just over $500 for the actual signs themselves. There would be a couple of them. Um the temporary signs that show the change in traffic control ahead, those would could be used at a separate time. Um but we do have $500 for the signage, but that does not include uh public work staff time to go out and install those signs. So um just I I went out um and because I wanted to see what and and there is a there's actually kind of like almost like a little bit burm. So taking the trees out is for me in my low car that wouldn't help. So and there was a sighteline issue um like you said um going to the west. So I mean it and it it's pretty serious. So if it's a safety issue, I always say, you know, $500 or whatever it might cost is is worth for for safety. Um that's that's my opinion. The only other thing I want to say and then I'll hand it over to anybody else that wants to say something is um it recently I've been in other communities and a lot of times when they have a four-way stop they have pedestrian um striping crossing and I wonder if we want to add that to this area as well. That's all I want to say. Okay, Kathleen, >> there's a tree on the southwest corner by that black house. Mhm. >> Can we get them to take that down? Cuz that's going to be a problem in like 2 years cuz I drive that all the time actually. Um I don't really care if you put the stop sign in. People are going to roll through it if they want to. They do it through all the ones on all of those streets. Um >> but why would they have to take the tree down there? >> Cuz it's in the sighteline and once it gets a little bigger and it's not this little tiny thing. It's >> actually It might be better. Well, no, cuz and you don't have a picture, I don't think, of that corner, but it's right it's it's like right here. >> Like it's it's in a bad spot. >> And I have a SUV and a truck and I think it's in a bad spot. Um >> I I think that tree needs to go and I don't care about the stop signs. And if you want to stripe the whole thing, go for it. The crosswalks are kind of goofy anyways because one is on this side and then you have to cross onto a non sidewalk street to then cross onto a sidewalk street. So, the sidewalks are weird in that area, but I don't care. You put the stop signs in. >> I want to know how the stop sign. How's the stop sign? I don't care. >> I am amazed. I'm amazed girl. >> All right. Um, Peter. >> Yeah, I think it's a good idea to put it in. >> Okay. I want to know why a stop sign's $500. >> Hey, that's not bad for a stop sign. I made out of metal. >> That's two stop signs. There's two of them. >> Can we get the really really big ones? >> Plus, I think you have the two more saying stop sign ahead or whatever. >> We have six signs total, madame mayor. So, some of them um and and as Gary just pointed out, some of them have the little flashers on them with >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I drive that every day and that that's problematic. That Lotus part there is too narrow for the amount of traffic it gets and you can only see it a little bit. There's like almost a jog to the left and tell you how many times The road isn't the same width. It's weird. It's a weird intersection. >> Yeah. So, I think that stop sign will uh solve multiple >> Why did they get to put the monuments in if they weren't on the plan on the sides? >> They look good. >> Um I I don't have an answer, but I didn't want to provide council with, you know, with what was seen on on the landscaping plan. And certainly um you know in any future development plan uh that's submitted we'll be taking a closer look with something like this so that we're not in this situation again that if there's a warrant for a four-way stop it goes in right away right away. >> That would be the plan. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. So go for it. >> Um Madame Mayor, this is actually an item on the regular agenda this evening. Um, we wanted to bring it to the work session um for a more informal discussion before bring before action on the regular meeting. >> It's like right there. It's horrible >> when you stop here because I always come this way and go here. >> Um, and you can't see well coming this way because of where that tree is. So, when it gets bigger, it's going to be horrible. >> That's what I was talking about. >> All right. >> Well, we can have Gary look at it. He's the tree guy. All trees >> for the in the rightway. We don't like them in the rightway. I don't like any of them in the rightway. There's also two on the other. If you're really going to do I think that we should get rid of the trees in the right way on that corner. It's already bad. A stop sign's not going to make it better. And the trees get bigger. It's going to be a problem. >> I don't think there are two in the northeast corner. They're just going to be just as bad for the stop sign visibility. >> Yeah, they're going to cover it. >> They need they need to come out. I mean, there's no doubt about it. Those two and there's actually two on that other corner that should come out for visibility. You might get a lot of push back from the people on the >> they're in the rightway. We can do what we want. Seriously, >> I know. I'm just I know that. But >> well, they can move them over onto their property more. They could put them here where they won't be in the sighteline. Like they can >> the northwest the northwest five in that corner. >> It's bad. >> Five trees in that corner right there alone. >> Yeah. >> I mean, if we're if we're fully concerned about safety, you need to move the trees that are blocking the sight lines. I didn't see >> it's just going to get like councilwoman said it's just going to get worse as these get bigger. I mean we have this problem all over in Hunters. We have a problem starting here. I mean there right now the way the signs are they block stop signs. They block lights. They they block streets name signs. I mean it's it's terrible the way it's set up this way. It's just it's not a it's not a good practice to have them that close to the curb, >> right? >> You know, or in between the sidewalk and the curb. I mean, I understand the appeal of it, but I always say put them in the people's yard and let them keep it and get it off our right away. >> Yeah. >> Less maintenance for us in the long run. And we're replacing sidewalks now out in Hunter's Crest that are heaving because of tree roads. >> Well, I mean, the trails in Woodland Cove are heaving from them, too. >> Yeah, they're terrible. From a standpoint, they're Don't get me wrong, I love a treeine street, but they need to be farther out and let them grow over a canopy. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um, is that a public works decision or or I mean I don't want to cut trees down. >> Well, they're little enough they'll be able to move them. I mean, ask them where they want to put them. >> This one is brand new. It went in this summer. I mean, they can still move them. >> All these can be moved. I mean, we are moving trees in the for the new water treatment plant out of that. we can move them and they they're willing to have them put them >> in their yard and ask. Let's do that if we can. Um that I'd prefer that versus just going in and ripping them out because then you're going to get people thinking it's their tree, which it's not, but still they're think it's their tree. >> So if you say, "Hey, we can we have to remove these for sighteline issues. We could put it in your yard." Um are you interested in that? >> That's nice. I like that. So, all right. Yes. All right. You're on board with that? >> Yeah. All right. Yeah. Yay. All right. Then I think that concludes um our work session discussion and we can be adjourned and you can have a bite to eat before 6:30. >> Great. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> And Claudia made that second. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 5. Um we will be back at 6:30. All right. >> Oh, you need your charger, huh?