Um it's a 501 or 502 or something like that. So I'm going to call the meeting to order. This is the uh city of Minatrista's work session for December 8th, 2025. Uh we have two items on our work session agenda and that is um we're going to interview uh Jane, Miss Jane Anderson. Do you go by Jane Anderson? Is that okay? Okay. And then uh for the LMCD position and then also we're going to talk budget. So, with that, I'm going to start out. Um, so Jane has been the sole applicant for, as you know, Michael Kirkwood has um is resigning um effective December 31st. And uh so we need to appoint a new representative. And um Jane is the sole um person that has applied. So, we're going to go easy on her so she doesn't bow out. [laughter] Uh [clears throat] Jane, why don't you come to the um microphone, uh introduce yourself, and I have four easy questions for you. >> Good evening. I'm Jane Anderson. I reside currently at 560 Edgewater Drive in Mound, but my husband and I are building a house in Minatrista on Hard Scrubble Circle. Probably next to our friend. >> Next to whom? >> Yes, we have. We know somebody out there. [laughter] Um, and so I co-founded Harrison's Bay Association four, five years ago because I have an interest in the conservation of this great asset of ours, Lake Minnetonka. Um because I'm moving out of the bay, I thought this would be a great opportunity and there's an opening with Mike leaving for me to apply for this opportunity to continue my efforts um understanding coordinating um >> I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. [laughter] >> Um like Mitaka and being good stewards. I think it's really important to be a good steward to this this wonderful resource, this gem. So, um, first of all, thank you for applying and thank you for your interest. Um, so, um, I just have a few questions to make sure that you know what you're getting into. So, um, you already kind of explained what your interest is in the lake, so you don't have to redo that, but um, what do you see as the role of the LMC? >> It is a conservation district primarily. Um, it's a group of 14 cities. I would represent Minatrista um to protect and serve and um give guidelines and restrictions for those of us that use the lake, right? Um, so the LMCD since 1967 has uh governmental authority over the surface waters of Lake Minnetonka and that's they can control the docks, number of docks, size of docks, uh, speed limits um, on the lake, that type of thing. So you'd you'd be part of the board that would make those recommendations and decisions. There's ordinances that they have. You probably have already looked at those or some of them. They have a lot. Um and um it'll take you a while to get through those, but you will learn them. Don't worry. Um so, um they have a meeting schedule. They have they meet uh normally twice a a month for their regular meetings, but they also have committee meetings. Is this something that would work with your schedule? >> Yes. Uh they meet the second and fourth Wednesday of the month. I do honestly have a conflict with the second Wednesday in January. So I I I don't know what how that is resolved. You just Yeah. You're just not there. And and that's fine. We And I don't know what they don't have any specific requirements, but I think our requirements is that you attend a minimum of 75% of the meetings. And so if you miss have to miss for various reasons a meeting here or there um we would that's certainly understandable. >> Okay, that that sounds very doable. >> Yeah. Um and then um are you would you be able to provide an annual update to the city council? You would come here during a regular meeting uh provide us with an update or in between and you might want to come and uh present us with some updates if especially if it pertains to Minotarista. Is that something you would be able to do? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> From talking to Mike, it's a pretty big time commitment. You sure you want to do that? [laughter] >> No, we'll stop being honest. It's um and I've talked with Mike as well. Um and I've been to several of LMCD board meetings. Um it is a lot of doc um permitting and things like that. I feel like I have a pretty good grasp as to what the time commitment is. >> Yeah, >> I'm okay with that. >> Okay. [laughter] >> It's it's not too bad. And sometimes they don't have two meetings a month. Sometimes because of lack of agenda items, um a meeting is canceled. So, um I think you'll you'll be fine. So, I think so, too. >> All right. Any questions of us? >> Um I think you've laid out the criteria [snorts] that you're looking for. I feel like I have a pretty strong um connection with that. >> Okay. >> Um and I'm looking for your endorsement. >> Okay, good. I think um I think it's safe to say that since you're the only applicant, you you're going to be appointed [laughter] and we would and not just because you're the only applicant, but be because I feel that you're qualified to do this. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate that. We really Now, what we're going to do is we don't do the um official appointment during this meeting. It'll happen um at our regular meeting following this. You don't have to stay um if you don't want to. I'm sure Jasper will get a hold of you and just confirm the official appointment, but safe to say that you will be appointed. >> All right. Thank you so much. >> Thank you for coming. Thank you for coming. And it's always nice to put a name to and a face together, too. So, >> likewise. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. So, now we're going to move on to budget. Brian, um, Madame Mayor and Council. So, it's probably two ways we can do this. It could probably either be more just a uh a Q&A um, you know, council asking questions or suggestions or comments or feedback. um based on all the information that was in the regular meeting packet, you know, the the public comment documents up front and then obviously the the fee schedule, levy, and budget for the um the business items or public hearing item in business or um I could go through the presentation that I'll have to go through at 6:30 and you'd see it twice, which I [laughter] I'm head shaking no to that. >> I I think we're okay without the presentation. Um we've been going through this for a while. I just have a couple of things I'd like to um throw out um as a a possible um it's not changing the levy, but it would change the numbers on the budget slightly. So, here's the thing. We're levying um in the original, and I talked with Brian about this and and Jasper earlier, so they're aware of what I'm going to say, and [snorts] they're okay with it. So, in our original um uh budget and documents, we're levying $625,000 for roads, and that's that's um plus we're also it's road maintenance and road projects, but we're also levying additional funds to pay our debt for road debts. Okay? So, the 625 is an addition to that. So, what I'm going to suggest is at the end of 26, it's projected that we're only going to be at around 38% fund general fund balance. So, I I talked to Brian and I thought I really think it would behoove us uh to levy uh 400,000 for roads and in that one item and then take the other 225,000 take 125 and put that towards our fund balance and that will bring our fund balance at the end of 26 up to 40%. I feel more comfortable with 40% versus 38 because 38 is really getting close to that 35% which is the lowest we'd want to be. So that would be one thing. The other 100,000 if you looked in your packet there was uh 350,000 that was um ratcheted up to 450,000 for admin costs over the next 20 years for the water treatment plant project. Well, what I'm going to recommend is that we stick to the 350,000 rather than the 450 because um that way what we can do is next year if we need to or feel we have to we can still have 200,000 250,000 approximately um between 200 and two 250,000 that we could still do for admin costs for their treatment plans. So we wouldn't have to do it all in one year. We could do it um over the course of two or even three years. >> I was going to see just probably a little context. So if you have the water treatment plant and the roads are doing this, it's probably should push 27 million. If you take 2% of that, that's more than 500,000. And that's usually been our standard to take a 2% admin. So you move that money to the general fund, add it to the project because there's there's time being spent by people that work out of general fund activities obviously or Jasper, myself, whatever. So, um, so I guess that's where, you know, the mayor's saying, "Yeah, if we ratchet that back down to 350, it would give us maybe we could do 200,000 then for 27's budget and you wouldn't have such a gap between 26 and 27 budget of a, you know, dollars to cover, you know, because see it's onetime money basically. >> It's one time money, right? >> So, >> and then we also had if you >> splitting it over the two years, I guess, you know, instead of doing more upfront, it would be a little more because and and the water treatment plan is going to spill into two years. So it might even match better like period to period or whatever. So >> the other thing too is um we have we authorized that 16th police officer and that's going to cost the city roughly between 130 and 150,000 plus um some other expenses in the police department have come up that we weren't aware of when we um established the levy. So this would give us a little more wiggle room. Now here's the thing. Um, our fund balance and our our road improvement is uh 1.99 million. I think it is 1.94 million. >> It's 1.4 if we do the 625. It would go up to 1.9. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because because we're not doing as much. We're doing like 450,000 of maintenance. You having right now 625 is what's proposed. So it almost >> we should have enough. But if we don't, we can take the money from the fund balance and our road in our road fund balance and shift that to what we might need for roads. And the other thing to keep in mind, I was looking at this and I thought if we levy and we say we're levying, we can always shift dollars back and forth, but I think it's more transparent and more honest, if you will, if we say to our residents, we're levying this amount for roads. Um, and if we have to, we can take more funds out of our fund balance for roads versus saying, "Oh, well, this is what we're levying for roads, but now we're going to use some of it for a different use." You know what I'm saying? So, I think it it makes it's a little more transparent, a little more I don't want to say dis honest, but a little more um palatable to say this is what we're how we're funding our roads, if that makes sense. And then we can still have a healthy fund balance. I really think it would behoove us to try and stay in that 40 percentile. So, and then we can cover the other expenses too. I think there was around 11,000 for um additional pay that we had approved. And then there's also um [clears throat and cough] >> the the police the camera m or annual maintenance was 12,000 that I think with it being new wasn't quite in the August numbers or whatever. So, so yeah. So, basically the police budget's gone up about 150,000 and then there's been a little bit of the other non-union adjustments. Um, the St. Bonnie fire I think came back from their August estimate to um now about $25,000 higher I think based on the call. I don't know. I guess it was briefly explained that the calls were a lot higher that you know or I guess >> the I mean from the meeting um the other week the calls for us is 127 which isn't substantially higher than expected. the more St. Bonnie has had more calls. They're all for Lake Township because of Cronin College. Like they've they've had they've had more [clears throat] calls, but like our portion of the calls hasn't >> not not the last month, but I think it was more like from late summer fall. I was um >> I can [clears throat] So this is what they told us. This is came from Eric and um uh Chris is that Q3 and Q4 were projected when we did it in August when we adopted the prelim and then they have the actual numbers now and we actually just got the final final like today. Um and it is 20 $26,000 more than it was in August and Eric when I talked to him on the phone said it was because we had more calls in Minitrista than what they projected in August. So that's the story I got. >> Yeah, I think Mounds was a little lower. So Mounds was like 8,000 less or however it was, you know, because obviously they're working off of summer projections and stuff and you >> bound was a little less. Um finance is a little more >> ultimately fire was probably up 18 20,000 since when we you know, >> right? Yeah. >> So, yeah. So there's been some different things that have needed been worked into the the um general fund and they have been so you know on page six the general fund summary of the regular meeting packet and that's where the you know I think in in August the projection was to be at 40% and now we're at you know 38% and that was even with bumping that admin fee up 100,000 you know to try to help offset to knowing that we wanted to stay closer to the 40% >> 40% Right. >> Any thoughts? >> What does this do to planning for streets? Gary, >> what was that? [clears throat] >> What does this do to planning for streets? If we take what would you say 150 >> for this year? It's 400 or next year's 460,000 for the maintenance. And I just looked 2027 we're going to be pushing close to 575,000 for the maintenance aspect of >> which is probably okay because I think the one thing when we've been looking at it over the years is we didn't have a baseline of assessment revenue coming in on previous year's projects >> right >> and now we do so if you look at page 24 in the packet we've had the last two years um 154,000 [clears throat] in 2023 of special assessments and then 165,000 So really when you add that plus, you know, if we're at four, five, 600, that should be fine to cover what Gary's looking at. Plus, we put about a 100,000 in street aid in there each year. It's been about 90 to 100. So we've actually been able to, you know, you can see build, you know, I guess, you know, stay pretty steady, but you know, based on what Gary's projecting, we'd be able to probably stay where we're at or build even a small balance yet. So, >> so even if it's 460 and we levy 400, we take 60 out of the fund balance, which would still give us >> I don't even think we'd have to do that because we we have assessment revenue coming in. >> Oh, that's right. You're right. >> So, I don't even think we'd really be Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we'd still be at 1.4 1.5 even, >> which is, you know, a healthy fund balance for for roads. And we should be using that money for our roads comments. >> Yeah, makes sense. >> Makes sense to me. >> Okay. >> Did I capture that right? So, did you say I know we had talked on the phone earlier and then Yeah, I think >> so. 225 >> 225 move from the roads to the general fund levy, but then bring down the general fund. See, we just really need 125 to get to the >> 40% >> 40% then move that admin fee from 450 to 350 and then that should >> and then the and then the general fund balance will also come out to around 40%. That's right. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, yeah. So, basically our our net re So, when I do the update the budget document quick, it's just the the uh revenues will go down by a 100,000. We'll shift the 225 between the two funds. >> Well, the revenues really won't go down. Well, it's just we're shifting some funds. >> Well, then we're backing that admin fee back. So that that would actually for 26 the 100 would go down. Yeah. >> And then but the two Yeah. Otherwise, we're just shifting the 225 between the two funds. >> Okay. >> Yep. I think that >> Okay. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. But so when I started on council, the goal was to get to a million dollars levying for roads. And every year basically since then, we've decreased how much we levy for roads. I think we're How much are we We're leving at 875 in 2023. >> I think we've changed our philosophy on how we're leving for roads. We were usually going pay as you go, but we found that you could only get so much done. You know, there's some years we can do the four 500,000, but like this year we're doing we're, you know, we're levying for 2 three million in in roads and then we'll pay back as principal and interest. just in 2023 we've got um you know the 2023 road projects we basically have an annual levy of 350,000 a year got to add whatever we settle on if it's 400 you got to add >> 350 >> to that so >> I think it's just we're just splitting it differently but we're still levying if you really look at and we're still even levying for the Hallstead project back in 2017 like 118,000 a year so we we are I think spending whether you pay as you go cash or debt [clears throat] you know close to 900,000 to a million on roads. >> That makes I guess sense. It's just we haven't our cash levy's gone down a bit [clears throat] based on but I think that also you needed it to be higher until the special assessment started coming in on those other projects. So that's the other thing though where you're able to back off the cash levy a bit is because we have those other revenue sources that go to the fund >> and we adjusted the road CIP to match that because when we were talking about Brian and I talked about that we t we he told what we had to have out of there for what we're funding to pay that stuff. So that's coming off the top. So we still have projects lined up to do and stuff in the off years in between here. So um we will have the money coming in and some of that money will guess go to pay debt but we can use that and what we have in you know in the coffers for other road repair projects or replacement projects. So >> yeah, I think we've just gotten in a pretty good system or planning it out that you do, you know, couple years of the, you know, 500 600,000 then you you package together some of those bigger ones knowing we're going to issue debt every couple few years >> and then do the smaller ones in between and stuff and it's worth the maintenance aspect is increasing. So that's what we kind of have to kind of keep an eye on. That's going to be the one coming in the future here now. So, >> right. >> And then where's this where's the slide with the rest of the moving the money from the admin on the water treatment? Like where is that? >> Oh, um >> what page? >> What page? Um I'm [clears throat] trying to think of the best place to >> I'm trying to find it. Um so the admin fee is on page of the revenue. Um page seven there's there's a third from the bottom other admin charge street basically street and water projects it should say but that's where the 450 and the revenue you see that there. We back we back that down to 350 and then just obviously the general fund levy would go up by 225 and then the >> on page five is where he explains the 350 to the 450. >> Yeah, I guess on the on the memo. Yeah, if you go down to the uh second to last bullet point there, I had said after time to try to get it closer back to 40 after adding it out, you know, the police and public safety items and stuff and um yeah, the admin charge is going to go up from 350 to 450, but now with doing this shift between the general fund and rose, I think we could drop that back down to 350, >> but we don't levy for the 350. >> No, that's just it's revenue. That would just be basically as part of the project cost, we'll basically basically just make a transfer between the the general fund and the and the water and road funds. Basically, you know, the to transfer the revenue into the general fund and add it to the expenses and the mostly the water, but little to the the road project fund or whatever. So, >> plus we would have to make that up the following year. >> Correct. And that's why >> that's why the other reason I'm leerary about adding $450 because then we have to make $450,000 up the following year. >> Yeah. >> And this is just wages being allocated to that. I guess I don't understand what the admin charges is per se. >> Yeah. It's probably I mean I think it's a standard procedure. you know, most or a lot of cities do that. If you've got a huge or big projects that it's going to basically take, you know, you know, realize or knowing that it's going to take, you know, administrative time to help with whether it's meetings with, you know, UPS and, you know, the your guys' weekend meet or whatever you guys have every other week meetings or so, it's basically just adding expense to the project fund or whatever, you know, I guess the water fund um for the project and yeah, basically adding costs there and bringing revenue into general fund to to b >> cover that or basically you know make that show that make make the general fund whole for the time that it's staff and and administrative time and stuff is uh >> because it's not just it for 26 I mean they they've been working on this for couple of years so it's it's all of that time as a general I guess >> and if I mean there are ongoing things that like Brian will have to do for the life of the bond. It's over 20 years out. So there's a little bit that's kind of why or how you can justify it is because it's you know 20 years of of you know doing budgeting and and making payments and doing arbitrage and things like that for the whole for the fund. >> Well yeah but I mean that's just part of Brian's job. Cool. It can be it's all how you want to approach it, but we do have the ability to reimburse ourselves >> money out of the loan to offset Brian like staff's regular salary for doing their job tasks. >> Basically, >> it's set up so that there can be water funds that are allocated towards admin functions and it's associated >> water is separate, not everybody's on it. So, >> correct. Yeah. Yeah. And it it it kind of grows because it's 20 years. You know, it's obviously front-loaded. There's a lot more work that happens in the first, you know, three to five years, but then after that, it's a little bit less, but it is for 20 years or the life of the bond. >> But you don't you don't um do it every year. >> No, it is. So, just because we're taking 450 this year doesn't mean we'd have to take it the next year. >> No, but but we're just padding our general fund with money from the water fund, >> right? And so next year, if you have 450 in that fund right now, next year you're going to have to make up that whole 450,000. And that's why I'm saying is I think it's better to do the 350 for 26. Then in 27 if you have to, you could just do 200. You'd still fall within that 2% total, but you're not taking and then the following year you only have to make up, let's say, 200, >> right? because we're taking money from the water fund to subsidize the general fund more normal >> well matching expenses see that it's known that there's going to be more time of people whose salaries get charged in the general fund for the most part I have a small portion of mine that gets to like the the enterprise funds and stuff there's going to be more time that I'm going to be working on in these next couple years in water fund activities so it's it's a better accounting um matchup or whatever you want to call it too by or allocation I of of funds to otherwise sort of like you could look at the flip side the water funds sort of getting off easy by I'm spending a lot of time in it but it's not getting really any salaries charge to it or much so that's I guess another way to look at it. >> Yeah, it does help I mean I guess it the other convenient thing it does help with is we sort of know our our building permit revenue. I mean we've ratcheted down from 759 to 309 because we know we're going to run out of lots in in Woodland Cove. So that's sort of I mean it's it helps with otherwise where do we get that $400,000 difference you know in license and permits um that's projected to drop off. Mhm. >> So I mean, so it there's a few reasons that the admin fee helps and to do it at some somewhat substantial amount in 26 or we're going to be running into more of a a budget deficit or fund balance spend on whatever you want to call it when the actual or you have to raise the levy. >> Yeah. Or you Yeah. Which >> or you have to raise you raise more in 27 because we're sort of fixed now or whatever for Okay. All right. Any other questions? Anything else? >> The pie all fit together based on jug of balls, I guess, or whatever you want to look [laughter] at. But I think it's valid. It's not We're not doing something overtly crazy or anything by doing this. I think it's valid and it's reasonable and justifiable. So, >> yeah. No, I just in general if you're allocating salaries from for the water treatment project, it should be paid out of the bucket of the water treatment fund bucket because those residents are paying for it and now you're taking that money that we're bonding for that well some of us are paying for and some of us aren't and you're subsidizing other salaries and I guess from an auditing perspective are you submitting like time aotment for what everybody's doing for that versus the other regulars? duties >> you you will but not for the project itself. So eventually what what happens is when the water treatment well right now even we do allocate certain um hours um specifically hours for water infrastructure and water maintenance. Um Gary does that and his his people do that and they say okay we spent so many hours in the water treatment plant we spent so many hours for this and you know so they do that already for that but this is for just the administrative part the additional time that they're spending like Brian said the meetings the all of the stuff that they have to do to make this project come to fruition >> documents on stuff bond over the next few months and see Todd Hagen and every different you know >> plus and then there's there's ongoing things that they have to do, the arbitrage and all of that. I don't even Yeah, I don't even want to get into that because but um all of that that they have to do and that that's should be covered with this as well over the next 20 years >> and this is pretty standard for like big capital projects at big companies too. >> No, I mean I get it. It just you're moving money from a designated fund to the general slashf fund and then saying it's all being used on these services instead of keeping it in the water fund where you think you have a separate category in there of extra hours spent on everything and all of that. That's that's just more my thought process. Again, I'm not I'm fine with it. That's fine. I get why we have to do it. I just have questions and I found out about this, you know, 15 minutes ago. [laughter] [laughter] >> I'm saying once you do this for a year, you have to keep doing it. >> No, it's more to capture because there's going to be more time on the front end. So that's why I think right now we going down the path we probably would do 350 this year and then probably another 200,000 next year or give or take. And then after that really I mean the project hopefully should be done close to the end of 27. So you're you're almost bigger time is going to be in the first few years where the projects are are going versus after that it gets to be more just you know you got to make your bond payment every year and stuff. it it's pretty uh minimal that the extra effort, but to me I know just from some of these bigger projects and making sure you're you working with the engineers, working with the vendors, working with there's just extra time, you know, as far as >> and it's not it's Brian's time, it's Jasper's time, it's Gary's time, probably even some of the people's >> Angie's time um a little bit just calls on >> Right. Well, yeah, but I mean again that's why in the water fund there's a designated salaries line item in there >> and those are in addition to this I mean Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, we'll make those changes if you're all on board. And so, the levy stays the same. We're not really reduced. So, we can't really reduce it. Um, but we can't raise our I think just making those changes will be a little little bit easier. Um, anything else, Brian, that we should be aware of? No. Yeah, I don't know if anyone has any. Yeah, the tax lobby, I guess, is proposed to stay the same. They'll just be moving the 225 between and actually it's pretty simple for even the uh the documents at the county. They basically consider anything that's not um uh debt related, just general levy. Um, I guess I'm just Yeah. going to like page 266 of the packet. So, even though I know we break it down more on our resolution on page 264 really and I'll move that, you know, between general fund and roads really. There's nothing else for the the county just um considers any cash levy that's not debt related basically just general levy. >> And I was going to mention that too that um so even though the road fund balance is um you know 1.4 41.9, whatever it is. But, um, it's not a restricted fund, but yet it sort of is because we've told our residents, this is what we're levying the money for. So, I think it would be a harder cell. Like, let's say we're halfway through the year and we need we realize that we have this expense or that expense, whatever. It'd be harder to take it out of the road fund versus the general uh fund. And that's the other reason I want to make sure we have the 40% in there in case of an emergency, in case of something that unforeseen that we need to to do or purchase or pay for. Um I think it's easier to take it out of the general fund versus doing a a fund balance transfer. So transferring out of the road fund into the general fund. That just doesn't look right to me. That's just where I'm coming from. So Okay. All right. >> Yeah. I Yeah. And so I guess you have the levy is fine and the the overall budget I know um is on the last page. Everyone, you know, sort of understands the different buckets there on page 269. I mean, obviously, we're going to have the slight adjustment um to the general fund and the special revenue funds, but um yeah, basically we're looking at spending [clears throat] and bringing in, you know, obviously there'll be some decent bond proceeds with that other finance sources, but about $31 million, I guess, give or take, which, you know, the uh treatment plant's going to be 12 million if we split, you know, half and a half between 26 and 27. The roads is another few million. You know, the general funds seven and a half million. So, you can see how things start to add up or whatever. So, >> um I don't know if anyone has any questions there. And then I guess um otherwise would just be the the fee schedule. Um I don't know if anyone had any thing there, but you know, um like Angie's got that all uh delineated where um the changes are in, you know, in red and the truck strike out, you know, the current and what the updated changes are. I think we got the utility rates all right or I hope hope we did. I think based on the previous discussions and you know I think we took and incorporated that um trying to think where the water rates are like 250 uh 250 page 259. So that's sort of you know that base fee. Obviously we'll have the interimm adjustment you know when we go monthly um next summer or whatever. Um but this is how it' be starting January 1 of this year. So, and then add the sewer and the uh recycling are just going up by those couple. You know, I guess $10 total between the two in storm water. No, we're keeping the same because we are sitting at a decent fund balance on the storm surface water. So, any other thoughts or >> No, but there if you add it up, um we're levying for the game farm road um bond 129. So basically 130 uh 341 for the um 23 street project and then 194 almost 195 for the uh 2017 street project. So if you add all those together plus the 400,000 we're we're at we're over a million. [clears throat] >> Yeah. And a little bit on that page on 269. Some of that is special assessment but the vast majority of its taxes or whatever. So Right. Right. >> Yeah. That's why I think Yeah. to the point of are we still collecting I guess you know trying to get 900,000 to a million in in tax revenue for roads I would say we're we're close or at least in that ballpark. So >> in total >> okay um I think next year um we'll be look we'll have to see where our building permits come in. I think that's going to be the big >> [snorts] >> um the big issue. Mhm. >> Hopefully by 2027 we'll have it back to I mean yeah I guess that's going to be another >> and to that point in the on page seven under the revenue detail where you have zoning and subdivision fees. You have that at $45,000. Is that realistic? >> Those are just the um those are more the uh like the what do you want to call the subdivision fees when they come in and apply and stuff. So hopefully we have actually we should hopefully hit that and stuff if we get some of these developments coming in. Yeah. Right. And it might be more. Yeah. Yeah. You know, hope there's a development that kind of goes through the process of getting um all the entitlements done that number will be much higher. So, same with same with money um related to trunk fees and things like that. Much higher. Um but we don't we don't know. >> Very you were being conservative. >> Yeah. I was surprised it wasn't lower being conservative, I guess. [laughter] >> I was surprised it was the same. >> Oh, yeah. usually >> they kind of looked at, >> you know, later on. So, >> yeah, they kind of looked at what do we think is on the horizon and and there's there's been some movement by, you know, some properties. So, we'll see. We'll see if it happens. Okay. All right. Good questions. So, with that then, um I think we're we're good to go. just so what I just does everyone want a copy of the quick I can go do the resolutions probably in the break here levy and just hand out five copies or whatever >> and then um do we need one for for the public in case we have people okay >> well yeah we'll print off a couple extra >> okay >> sounds good all right >> with that so is there then any other comments or questions >> all right um is there a motion to adjurnn >> so moved >> thank you is there a second >> second >> thank Thank you, Peter. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes and we have 40 minutes. >> 20 40. Yeah. About 40 50 minutes. >> Yeah. Whatever.