I'll get here. [Music] Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the administration's operations and bud budget committee of Monday October 20th 2025. It's just a little after 2 minutes after 12. Um, so could staff please roll the tape. [Music] [Music] [Music] Welcome everybody to the administration's operation and budget committee. Today we will open with recorded public comments from the public works law safety and justice sheriff's office and the county attorney's office budget presentations held on October 1st and on October 6th. There was a technical issue that happened that prevented call-in line for public comment on the open the following for the public works law safety and justice lines of business on October 1st. We continue to accept comments then on the open line during the week of October 6 for those budget hearings along with comments from the sheriff's office and the county attorney's office. So would staff please play the recorded comments we received. >> Hi, this is Richard Kajeski. work for the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters and I attended a budget hearing last week in which the voice machine here was not working. So, thank you for this opportunity to actually leave a message and I just want to start by thanking the commissioners who express positive opinions about the community productive day program. I'd also like to thank the Henipin County staff for recognizing the importance of this program and the success that they've had over the years. While attending the meeting, I learned several things that were really in contrast to what the carpenters instructors were previously told on numerous different occasions. Communication with our instructors has included misinformation that has ranged from the program is ending, but it's being funded for six more months to finish the houses that are currently in progress. And as recently as uh late last week, an email was sent stating that the program would not be accepting any more participants, which was news to us. Uh, at the hearing last week, I learned the program is fully funded and is going to continue accepting clients as they currently do while staff consider ways to increase participation. If I might make one suggestion, uh, please include an instructor in future meetings when discussing the expansion of the program. Continued misrepresentation about the future of the program uh, creates unnecessary stress. It creates anxiety for people who are truly doing their best to assist people in building a sustainable career. Uh carpentry has an apprenticeship. It has requirements that are established by the Department of Labor and Industry that place requirements on contractors and on training programs. These standards are something that we take very serious and our focus is to do everything we can to make program participants successful. Nice. Thank you to those who called in. Public comments on the budget are recorded after each budget hearing and at the end of today's meeting. I'll give directions on how uh you can comment today if you're listening in. Next item on the business of item of business is to approve the minutes from the previous October 6 budget hearing on the sheriff's office and county attorney's office budgets. Do I have a motion? >> Second. >> It's been moved and seconded. Any corrections, changes? All those in favor signify by I. >> I I. Motion carries. The county administrator submitted her budget to the county board on September 16th. The proposed budget totals $3.09 billion and was based upon a property tax levy increase of 7.79%. The board adopted a maximum pro property tax increase of 7.79% on September 25th. Today we'll hold hearings on the proposed 2026 budget. These hearings are intended to allow board members to understand what is included within the proposed budget. Additionally, these hearings provide a forum to gather public input to the proposed budget and 2026 proposed budget and the schedule of these hearings are available on the county's internet page www.henipin. us/budgets. At the end of the of today's budget hearing, we will provide the call-in number for specifics on how members of the public will be able to submit comments on these budget hearings. This afternoon's agenda includes two public hearings. First, we will hear the recommendations of the 2026 capital budget and 5-year capital improvement program. And second, we're going to hear the proposed changes to the departmental fee schedules. The 2026 budget hearing will become comprised of three parts. A presentation by the capital budgeting task force chair on their recommendations of the 2026 capital budget and the 2026 to 2030 capital improvement program, including a debt and debt service forecast update, the administrator's commentary on her proposed capital budget, and lastly, we would accept public comment on the capital budget and capital improvement program. So, colleagues, I just want to know this is a three-hour meeting. I will be looking for a time to take a quick break for everybody while we can. Okay. Um Susan uh Carlson Weinberg, chair of the capital budgeting task force, is going to make a presentation. I've also when we go and do we're going to do introductions here in a moment. I've asked her to introduce her committee members who are present today. So, I want to thank those who showed up for the CBTF. So, I appreciate that. We'll start here. Debbie Goautel, Henipin County Commissioner, District 5. >> Kevin Anderson, District 7. Tanya, District 1. >> Irene Fernando, District 2. Angela Conley, District 4. Edson, District 6. Marian Green, District Three. >> And I'm Susan Carlson Weinberg, CBTF chair. Um, the other members of the CBTF who are here today are Elise Weman. >> Raise your hand. and she is serving on behalf of Commissioner Fernando, Steve Furlong. >> There he is serving on behalf of Commissioner Gatell, Carolyn Jackson serving on behalf of Commissioner Eden. Tim McNeel, thank you. >> Serving on behalf of Commissioner Anderson, and Brendalyn Foster, one of our four at large members. >> Okay, wonderful. Go ahead. Jody Wentland, county administrator. >> Adam Sylvia, capital budget manager. >> And we're going to go to the back room here. We'll start with our clerk. >> Sherry Selton, deputy clerk. >> Raina Meyer, District 6. Vincent Fonte, District 4. >> Eli Farha, District 3. >> Severson, District 7. Kate Nelson, District 5. >> And as we need people can be introduced from the audience. So I appreciate that. So I will hand it over to you, Miss Wetland to do the introduction. >> Thank you, Chair Gotel Commissioners. I actually am going to hand it over to Chair Weinberg who will be walking through the first slides from the capital budget task force recommendations. So, thank you for the work that you and um our task force has done over this past year. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Dell and Commissioners. Again, I'm Susan Carlson Weinberg, CBTF chair, serving on behalf of Commissioner Lundy. Thank you for having the capital budgeting task force here today. I'll be presenting the task force's recommended 2026 capital budget and 2026 through30 capital improvement program or CIP. But first, I would like to provide some context regarding the role of the capital budgeting task force often abbreviated CBTF. As you may know, Minnesota statute 383B.113 provides that the county board may appoint a citizens advisory committee to assist the board in preparing the capital program and the CBTF was formally established by the county board in 1973. The CBTF has been active since that date, annually reviewing county departments capital project requests and making recommendations concerning those requests to you. The task force consists of 11 county residents. Each commissioner appoints one member and the other four members are selected by the board as a whole and serve at large four-year terms. So three of our four at large members are not here today. They are Greg Stika, Heidi Hamilton, and Nathan Rich. In addition, our commissionerapp appointed members, Linda Weingarden, serving on behalf of Commissioner Green. Dra Discoll serving on behalf of Commissioner Connley are not here today and the others have been introduced already. This year, we added two new members and it marked the first time the CBTF has had full membership since 2021. I want to thank you for your support and commitment to our group and your appointments to the CBTF allowing us to achieve our full membership coal. The capital budgeting task force is fortunate to have such engaged members with thoughtful questions and a diversity of opinions who actively participated in the discussions and deliberations leading up to the recommendations that I am presenting today. We are confident that the capital budget and 5-year capital improvement program we are recommending was carefully considered will adequately maintain and invest in the county's physical infrastructure and does not exceed the amount of revenues available to fund these investments. Over the course of four months this summer, we met eight times, pairing many of our sessions of project presentations and discussions with a facility tour where departments are requesting funding for new or ongoing projects or where significant capital investments have been completed in recent years. Our tours included recently completed remodeling and infrastructure work at the government center and 625 building, a driving tour of the current medical center campus, as well as stops at five South Minneapolis libraries, including East Lake, Washburn, Lynen Hills, Hosmer, and Franklin. the new sheriff's public safety services headquarters in Plymouth and a look at the proposed work needed at the Brookdale Regional Center, including the Brookdale Library. Members noted how important touring the county's key facilities is to familiarize ourselves with the spaces impacted by capital projects we review and to better understand how services are provided to residents. And we look forward to continuing this long-standing tradition. Before I get into the specifics of our recommendations, I want to thank former county administrator David Huff for joining us at many of our meetings. He provided key insights into county board priorities and strategy. Over the years, we have enjoyed working with him on the county's capital budget and we wish him well in retirement. I also want to thank our new county commissioner, Jodie Wentland, for taking time to meet with the CBTF during one of our last scheduled meetings this year and for sharing a preliminary concept of her capital plan before we began our budget deliberations, which was very useful to us. We look forward to forging a strong relationship with administrator Wetland in the future years. CBTF members also wish to recognize the county's progress towards disparity elimination, climate action, and other key county priorities, such as working towards zero waste in our communities. We appreciate receiving information on these countywide initiatives and priorities, which help us as we review capital project requests. We are pleased to strongly recommend projects that align with these priorities. During our deliberations, we had a robust discussion about the costs of implementing some climate action initiatives, which in some cases may not have the most ideal investment from a financial perspective, but have a desirable impact on the county's values of reasonable stewardship of our resources and environment. To the extent possible, CBTF members would like to have a better understanding of the financial and environmental impact of sustainability and climate action initiatives and county projects we review in the future as this awareness is beneficial to our understanding of the true impact of the project. As I discussed the specifics of our CBTF recommended 2026 capital budget and 2026 through30 CIP, you can find the details of our recommendations in our report, section one, budget summary, starting on page 45. Overall, the funding requested by departments was significantly lower than last year. This can be attributed to county administration's direction to departments to limit the number of new project requests to be included in this year's capital budget. The CBTF is pleased with this guidance as in recent years the CBTF has become increasingly concerned with the county's ability to fund all requested projects while staying within the board approved debt guidelines knowing that some large capital investments will be needed in the future. Although these large projects have yet to have a major impact on the capital budget, the county's annual property taxup supported debt payments have continued to rise. As the county faces a number of other challenges, including federal and state financial uncertainty, the CBTF is generally recommending that only the most critical projects should be moving forward at this time. To summarize the 2026 capital budgets, departments requested just under 500 million in 2026 project funding. This is about 70 million less than the 2025 approved capital budget and is over 100 million less than the amount that had been planned for 2026 when you approved the 2025 capital budget and 2025 through 29 5year CIP last year. This year the CI CBTF is recommending a 2026 capital budget of 366 million which is a 132 million reduction from what was requested by departments. With respect to the property tax requirement, we are recommending funding of 3.3 million. Regarding general obligation bonds, we are re recommending 173 million in budget authority, which is a 121 million reduction from the amount originally requested by departments and 52 million less than the approved 2025 capital budget. The property tax supported portion of general obligation bonding is 150 million and is considerably less than last year's amount of 215 million. These reductions paired with the limited number of new capital projects this year keep the county well within its debt guidelines. Additionally, to lessen the burden on property tax, the CBTF continues to encourage departments to seek out alternative noncount revenue sources for their projects when available. There are no questions for me at this point. I will have Mr. Adam Sobiac, the county's capital budget manager, provide more detail regarding our bond financing recommendations with respect to the county's debt and debt service guidelines. Adam, >> thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Chair Weinberg, Chair Gatell, and members. I'm Adam Sobiac in the Office of Budget and Finance. Since the board approved the debt guidelines in 2009, the office of budget and finance has provided an annual update on the debt guidelines with respect to the CBTF recommended CIP. I will be walking through the general obligation debt and debt service forecast which can be found on page 33 through 35 in the capital budget binder in section one in the budget summary tab. So to get you oriented uh this forecast contains a summary page along with two uh pages of background details. I'll be speaking primarily from the summary page. In the first table section one outstanding debt. This shows our general obligation debt that is supported by the property tax revenues. It consists of the amount of current debt plus potential future issuances outstanding over the next 5 years. If you look at the subtotal in the 2025 column, you'll see that there will be just over $1.2 billion in outstanding general obligation debt that is supported with property taxes at year end. This is about $185 million increase or 18% over the amount I noted to you last year. Highlighted in yellow are the CBTF's recommendations. So, the CBTF is recommending a 2026 budget that may authorize an additional $150 million in new geo property tax supported debt. The next table down, section two, debt service, shows the estimated debt service or principal and interest payments that is supported by property tax levy over the next five years. In 2026, the county's property tax supported debt service payments will be $129 million. Couple of items to note. This summary does not address general obligation debt or debt service that has been internally supported by other resources. That information can be found on page two and three in the background. Examples of this would include examples of this nonpropy tax revenue uh would include county transportation sales tax revenue which support debt issued for the light rail. Henipin Healthc Care System revenues which support the debt for the clinic and specialty center, revenues from other entities such as the Minhaha Creek wershed district and county enterprise revenue such as solid waste fees or energy center revenues which support projects in the environment energy department. These bonds are issued as a general obligation of the county but are internally recognized as funded with other revenues or enterprise revenues. And is important to note that if the respective planned revenues fail to materialize as projected, these bonds would be required to be serviced with other revenue such as property taxes. Uh, also not included in this forecast is county debt that is not a general obligation to the county at this time. The only non-general obligation debt the county has is the outstanding ballpark sales tax revenue bonds, which we have just over $34 million in outstanding principal. Um, back on the summary page, continuing down, uh, the third table addresses the CBTF's recommended CIP as it compares to the county's debt guidelines. Recall that the debt guidelines only pertain to the debt that is solely supported by the property tax levy. So that the two tables above, there are three board adopted guidelines. The first guideline being the total outstanding debt per capita. This is adjusted annually by the consumer price index and this guideline amount and the related forecast amount is noted in red font on the forecast document. The debt forecast stays comfortably under this guideline throughout the CIP. The second guideline is the total outstanding debt as a percent of estimated market value which is set at 65% of the total estimated market value and is noted in blue font. Although growth in the estimated market values have slowed in recent years which have tightened this guideline, the forecast stays under this guideline as well, reaching as high as 61% of the total estimated market value of properties in the county in 2028, then beginning to recede. And the final guideline in green is the debt service as a percent of property tax levy. This this guideline is set at 15% which means no more than 15% of the annual property tax levy should be going towards principal and interest payments on debt. The ratio is forecasted to be at 11.4% in 2026 and never gets within 1% of the 15% max over this 5year CIP. So the CBTF recommendations are well within the three guidelines. The budget office is very comfortable with the recommendations considering the conservative nature of this debt forecast. If there are no questions, I'll turn it back back over to CBTF Chair Weinberg. >> Thank you, Adam. Now, I would like to take a few minutes to provide some commentary from our CBTF project deliberations for the public works roads and bridges area. The CBTF strongly supports the county's continued investment in maintaining our road and bridge infrastructure. We are pleased to see that new revenues from the metro area transportation sales tax and increases increases in state and federal awards are reducing the pressure on debt issuance to support the road and bridges program. We understand staff have rescheduled some funding into later years in the capital improvement program due in part to help projects better align with the priorities of our city and state partners. Consistent with the county administrator, we fully support these changes and have included them in our budget recommendations for the public works program at Madina. We look continued to learn more about the plan public works facility fleet services modernization and expansion project. This year we were updated on a revised plan that will focus only on the maintenance shop which is the most critical item. It is evident that a lot has changed at this facility over the past two decades, especially the size and nature of the fleet equipment being serviced and improvements are needed to maintain safety and efficiency. However, due to the substantial amount of funding available from prior year's authorizations, we are recommending that additional funding for this project be deferred one year. for the public works transit and mobility department which supports the light rail transit projects. The CBTF received an update regarding the metro blue line extension LRT project. The CBTF is recommending the full 50 million that was requested in 2026 all funded by the Henipin County Transportation Sales Tax. While the county's contribution to this project is not increasing at this time, we are aware of the prelim preliminary cost estimate for the overall project that is now in the range of three billion and the uncertainty related to sources of funding for increasing project costs. We look forward to hearing from transit and mobility again next summer when more might be known about the full cost of the project and the amounts of federal and other contributions. And although we realize that LRT operations and safety are the responsibility of the Met Council, Metrotransit, we do recognize the concerns we have heard from LRT riders and express our hope that appropriate changes can be implemented to increase the safety for LRT riders in the public works environment and energy department. We continue to support preservation and investment in the county's existing facilities and the positive environmental impact staff are delivering to residents through various services. The CBTF had an informative discussion with staff on the new recycling recovery facility project. Members have learned a lot about this large investment and understand that it is just one piece of a very complex puzzle. We know staff, administration, and the board are continuing to review strategies and options around waste reductions and waste management. The CBTF is supportive of the project and recommends funding to continue this work in 2026. We look forward to more information on this project as it becomes available. Switching to the law, safety, and justice program areas for district court. We were able to see a number of their spaces during our tour of the government center this summer. The CBTF was excited to see that construction work began this year to remodel four floors of the sea tower to make room for the family courts program from the family justice center, the last phase of the county's downtown campus master plan that began just prior to co. Due to this significant project currently in progress, we agree with the administrator's proposal to remove two requests from the capital budget. The district court PSF administrative area remodeling and government center C3 housing court admin modifications and to defer the other district court requests in 2026. We understand the accessibility modifications at the public safety facility and housing court service counters which are part of the deleted projects can be completed as part of the facility services accessibility modifications program. These deferrals will allow staff to focus on completing the work that is currently in progress. Regarding community corrections and rehabilitation, we support the ongoing facility investments across the system. We are especially interested in seeing the outcome of the ACF men's visitation, education, and staff training remodeling project that will begin construction soon as this investment will allow staff to implement best practices and accommodate specialized programming to aid in resident rehabilitation. However, since the county is working to manage various financial pressures, we are recommending that major investments in the government center A8 and A11 remodeling and juvenile justice center probation remodeling projects be deferred one year. Additionally, for the JDBC facility modifications and improvements project, the CVTF is deferring a portion of funding from 2026 to 2027 to focus on the highest priority items. Moving on to the sheriff's office. As I mentioned earlier, the CBTF had a very informative tour of the new sheriff public safety services headquarters. Staff from the sheriff's office and facility services did a wonderful job of explaining the unique functionality of the facility as well as the sustainable investments that were incorporated into the construction of the building. Regarding the sheriff's 2026 project requests, the CBTF continues to support projects underway for the public safety facility equipment replacement and city hall jail finish and furniture upgrades. Though we are recommending deferral of a portion of these requests 2027, significant funding will be available in the 2026 capital budget to address the most critical items at these locations. Finally, the CBTF is recommending that the sheriff's city hall locker room improvements project be removed from the CIP at this time as costs have significantly increased and more justification is needed for this work. and considering there are fully modernized locker rooms at adjacent buildings at the government center and public safety facility. Moving on to the health line of business for the health henipin healthc care system or HHS often referred to as the medical center or hospital. We received an update from the county leadership regarding the facility master planning study for the future medical center campus. We heard that future phases of the master plan have been put on hold as the county was unable to secure legislative approval to repurpose some future revenues for healthc care facilities from the ballpark sales tax. We understand that the HHS parking ramp replacement project has also been put on hold for one year in recognition of the current challenging challenges facing HHS, including the unknowns surrounding future Medicaid revenues and to better align with a more realistic time frame for future improvements of the HHS campus. The CBTF recognizes that the uncertainty surrounding HHS is a constant source of concern and appreciates the board's close oversight and guidance on medical center projects due to the significant impact on county residents and county finances. In light of the delays related to the future hospital campus, the CBTF supports the county administrator in increasing the HHS asset preservation 20236 through 2030 project by 5 million to help maintain the critical infrastructure in the current medical center facilities to ensure the campus remains compliant as a level one trauma center. We expect the life of asset preservation improvements to be completed at these facilities will not exceed the number of years of remaining use. With respect to human services and public health program, the CBTF heard from staff about their plan for the human services center space efficiency modifications project. Although this project will make improvements that support human services on-site service delivery model, the CBTF feels that there are more pressing needs at this time and concur with county administration's recommendation to remove this project from the CIP. In the resident services line of business, the CBTF had a robust robust discussion with the library regarding the recently completed facility master plan and we are generally very pleased with the work plan that they presented. However, as the county faces uncertain funding conditions, implementation of this work plan should be done carefully, especially since significant investments are being made over the next few years at West Tonka, Southdale, and Brookdale. Therefore, we are generally supportive of the administrator's proposal to defer three projects, each lake, Washburn, and Lynen Hills, and reduce their budgets to focus on the most critical needs at these facilities. We are recommending removal of the library facility modifications 2026 through 2030 project. As work that is typically covered by this pro pro program is increasing in size and scope. Consequently, in future years, we suggest this type of work should be included in the CIP as a standalone project. During the CBTF deliberations, members discussed that they were surprised to learn that the Franklin Library was not a project in the library's lists of requests for 2026. Last year, there was much discussion about the need at this library, confirmed in the library's facility master plan, as well as during our tour of the Franklin Library this summer. The CBTF feels strongly that the county needs to begin now working on a solution for a new Franklin Library. This library is located in a community with the highest level of community disparities of any full-ervice library in Henipin County and is unable to meet the breadth of the community's library service needs due to its configuration size and building site and building size and age. Therefore, the CBTF is proposing a new capital project, Franklin Library Planning Study to look at options for a new Franklin Library, either as a renovation of a suitable existing structure or through new construction within a new space. Both traditional and special library services can be provided together in a single right-sized building. Moving on to the operations program, we heard an update from information technology and their community connectivity project. The CBTF was pleased to hear that this project is continuing to make progress in connecting county facilities and assets to redundant fiber. With the original goal of this project close to completion, we support the county administrator's proposal to scale back this annual request to 1 million per year. We also reviewed requests from the facility services department. The CBTF continues to strongly recommend the ongoing asset preservation work at many county facilities and we are supporting nearly 44 million in 2026 for facility services projects. However, the CBTF has made a few recommendations to reduce portions of some projects as spending is not kept up with budget allocations and large balances remain unspent. Additionally, the CBTF learned that the public works Madina facility preservation project received favorable bids for replacing the roof this past summer. So, we are recommending that this project be reduced by 4 million to reflect this cost savings. And lastly, the Municipal Building Commission MBC projects. We are recommending 3.8 million toward four projects that will continue to maintain and preserve the city hall courthouse building. The CBTF has always been very supportive of the requests of MBC and we are happy to report that we have heard that our city partners will likely be supporting their share of these projects in 2026 as well which will help to continue to maintain and preserve this historic building. This concludes the departmental and project specific updates the CBTF members wish to note. As I commented earlier, our complete capital budget and CIP recommendations are included in the CBTF report, which has been distributed to you and is posted on the county's website. In closing, I thank you for your continued support of the capital budgeting task force. I would also like to thank county administration for their input and guidance and all of the county staff who joined us to explain their department services and how strategic capital investments can improve those services which affect the lives of county residents. I especially want to thank Adam Soiac and Charlene Albbright in budget and finance for their unfailing support of our meetings as well as Joe Matthews and Margot Geffin and Christy Duffy and their team for their continuous data analysis and project information. At this time, I'm happy to any answer any questions you might have. >> Amazing. Well, I'm going to um thank you CBTF Chair Weinberg for a great job on the task force to all your great folks here. Thank you for coming and being a part of this great work. I know it takes a lot of your time and I just wanted to say that it's really appreciated to get your feedback. So now we're going to hear from administrator Jod Wetland regarding her proposed 2026 capital budget and and CIP and then we'll open it up for questions um before the public hearing. >> Thank you, Chair Gotel Commissioners. As Miss Weinberg noted, I was able to meet with the CBTF and introduce myself to them in my new role at one of their last meetings this summer. Over the years, I've presented projects to the group on behalf of the human services department, and I'm always impressed with their diligence in their questions and discussion. This year, there are several key drivers putting pressure on our capital budget, including a significant increase in our debt service payments in 2026. When we began the capital budgeting process early this spring, we were focused on tightening the capital budget as we prepared for fiscal challenges and uncertainties surrounding federal and state funding. We are also looking to build additional debt capacity as we prepare for significant future investments at the medical center. Because of this, I proposed a 5-year capital budget focused on core needs. Although the CBTF's re recommended budget and my proposed budget are aligned very closely, we did have a few differences that I will ask Adam Soiac from the Office of Budget and Finance to review. Thank you, Adam. >> Thank you, administrator. Um, on October 8th, the administrator's proposed 2026 to 2030 CIP was distributed to you and posted on the county's website. It's a memo like this. The packet contains a summary of the proposed capital budget, including project level detail, a comparison to last year's 2025 adopted budget, and then beginning on page 16 of the packet, you'll find a summary of the administrator's proposed variances from the CBTF recommended capital improvement program. In general, there are two not noteworthy changes. First, the administrator is proposing to reduce the amount of property tax programmed in three projects, a total of $1.5 million, and replace that funding with a combination of general obligation bonding and enterprise income. Secondly, you'll see there's only a $50,000 difference overall between the administrator's proposed CIP and the CBTF recommended CIP. The administrator is proposing to increase the accessibility modifications 2026 to 2030. capital project by $250,000 to accommodate needs at two district court service center service counter locations. The CBTF did not have this increase in their recommendations, but as you just heard, they are recommending a new project at Franklin Library for $200,000. And this concludes my comments on the variances. >> Thank you, Adam. Cherel commissioners, although Adam noted that I only have a few variances from the capital budget task force recommendations, I do wish to take a few moments to highlight some important planned investments within the capital budget and capital improvement program for 2026. This includes various roads and bridges projects. We continue to invest in our transportation infrastructure. The county has put dispersements from the new metropolitan area transportation sales tax to good use. This funding has allowed some planned projects to be accelerated in the 5-year SIP. Blue Line Light rail expan extension continued funding for planning and engineering of this project utilizing $50 million of the county's transportation sales tax. By next year, we hope to have a full funding agreement in place with the federal government. Continued planning and investment in environment and energy's new recycling recovery facility. Funding for this project is supported by enterprise revenues. Key preservation and infrastructure projects at our county owned facilities are moving forward with an emphasis on sustainability and implementing systems that support the county's climate action goals. The county has 120 owned facilities and over 10 million square ft of space. We are committed to investing in our facility assets to avoid service failures and large unplanned expenses. And at the adult correctional facilities men facility, construction on docr's visitation, education, and training center remodeling project will begin next year. This project demonstrates Henipin County's commitment to reducing and eliminating disparities in our community. This project includes an industrial trades education center to help bridge the education gap for those who are incarcerated. In addition, a new family visitation space will allow parents a better way to stay connected with their children while incarcerated to help improve parent and child relationships. We are continuing our support of Henipin Healthcare Systems. Our primary focus currently is to stabilize the operational and financial challenges at the hospital. Therefore, the parking ramp replacement has been delayed a year. There's a clear need for a new ramp. However, the current financial challenges, the hospital requires a one-year delay. This budget also includes $30 million in 2026 for desperately needed preservation projects at the hospital. We also look continue to look at the viability of a new hospital campus. The challenge is determining how to finance these generational projects. Finally, this proposal continues investment in our 41 libraries. Earlier this year, we finalized a 10-year library facility master plan that will guide our investments in libraries through 2035. One of the recommendations in the plan is for the county to look for new solutions to support a singlestory library to replace the Franklin Library in the next 4 to 7 years. As you heard, the CBTF is proposing a new project to be completed in 2026 to study replacing the Franklin Library. Based on the CBTF's recommendation, I plan to bring forward an amendment to add this project to the capital improvement program and but with funding in 2027 rather than 2026 to better align the timing with a likely capital project for this replacement. With that, Chair Gota, thank you for the opportunity to um provide an overview. >> Thank you, Miss Wlin. I really I really appreciate that. Um, at this time I'm going to open up for some questions and I'm going to start down at this end if you're ready. Uh, Commissioner Lendy. [Applause] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, first I want to thank uh the committee uh for your hard work. Um, you know, I see the visits, I see the things. So, it's not just sitting there in a couple virtual meetings. You're actually going out and seeing these sites and meeting people and listening to presentation. So, I just want to acknowledge that that uh that's your time that you're spending on behalf of us and I really respect that. I respect the recommendation that you bring forth to us and the concerns and the opportunities that you also have brought. Um I I don't have many questions. I just wanted to say I agree with the delay on the parking ramp. I think with the hospital, we've got a lot of work that we're all working together on and that just the operational side has got to get I wouldn't say fixed but just has to get to a better spot. So we have sightelines on that. Um I have no doubt that at some point we are going to be revisited not this year but in the future. Um, I do want to just, uh, you know, um, just call out the, you know, I do think that as a county, we're gonna have to be more more mindful of a legislature that wants to spend our sales tax money for us. Um, it wasn't just us, it was also Noa County. I don't see how if they've done it once, they've done it twice, but somehow they're not going to do it a third time. So I think this is appropriate place to say suggest that we should work with AMC because once a legislature believes that there's money out there that they could spend that they don't see the projects. They don't see the work that our committee's done to go out and vet these projects. But they can certainly decide that they want to spend our money, especially if they don't decide they decide they don't agree with our philosophy. And frankly, I don't care. Um we make we're elected by our people to make decisions uh make budgets for our people. um we don't need others to uh decide to take money that we've allocated. So I did want to highlight that that I just it's very mindful of me that it's not going to go away that I would expect them to decide that they can do it to us and they'll do it to other entities. I think it would call for the AMC to really put this in in front of that cuz as the state faces more budgetary pressure. Um, you know, I'm interested that it was the uh the last thing I'll just add, Madam Chair, is just how much the metro counties fought for the metro sales tax for money going to the Met Council and then to have the Met Council loan money to the state um would seem kind of like a good way to grab more money. So, it's not just one, it's not just two, but it's actually three. I would expect them to do it again if we don't take a strong stance. So, again, thank you to the committee. I really appreciate your insights and more importantly the work and time you put into it. >> Commissioner Green. >> Um, thank you, Madam >> and um, many thanks to the entire CTF. Thank you all for being here today. Uh I uh wanted to acknowledge my delinquency in appointing somebody from district three. I um had in mind this sort of perfect resume and uh I think I actually found the person eventually and now all of a sudden have a couple different um possibilities. So uh for any of the at large seats that might open up, I'm ready for you. Um, I wanted to acknowledge what you said um for on slide four that you that the CBTF would like to see more information on the um climate and financial impacts and I appreciated you asking that and just wanted to echo that question and and concern and let you know that I will carry that forward. Um I so so the administration team has heard me say before that uh in this difficult budget year sort of the lens through which I'm looking at things is for continuity and steadiness and I really appreciate that both the administration's capital budget and the CBDF proposed budget is reflects those sentiments. So thank you both. uh the the difference between you know the the difference is really quite small honestly uh and I appreciated and sort of had an internal chuckle and how neutrally it was presented. I'd love to hear your discussion about sort of the pluses and minuses of those two projects. They of course both sound really worthy. Um, uh, chair, I appreciate that you said how Franklin Library had been highlighted so much last year. What about that? Um, and I also know that the county is working really hard to make facilities more accessible, etc. So, is there, and maybe this is a more of a Jodie question, but is there the opportunity to do both or or how do how do we choose? Please, >> Chair, Commissioner Green. I'm going to look to Dan Rogan who can provide some thoughts on on both these. I work closely with Dan and Marggo Gaffin team. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Rogan. Welcome. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. And Commissioner Green, the I understand the Franklin project, but I don't I didn't understand what the second one that you're talking about. The so the difference between the CBTF proposal and administration was 50,000 and the difference is driven by $200,000 going to the Franklin Library. And then the way I interpreted it was um an a larger accessibility effort that would cost $250,000 on that was in the administration budget. >> Certainly. So, I can I can speak to the the part about the Franklin Library and then I think I'll probably turn to Adam to talk about the difference in the the the other funding about whether it's general obligation bonds or or property tax. The difference um in the Franklin between the CBTF recommendation and the county administrator's recommendation is uh simply one year um there uh it it it would uh as as Jod mentioned, she wants to put it into I don't know why I'm getting an echo. um the Franklin Library into the capital budget for $200,000 at uh in 2027 rather than 2026. And that's because that better aligns with what is in the facility master plan, which is a 4 to 7year uh uh time frame for uh essentially replacing the the Franklin Library with a with a different building. Um, so we so the the the only difference there is is the year of the of the funding and we wanted it to be closer in time to when we uh thought we'd actually have a an idea for a a project, a location uh to to get that done to to study it um closer in time to when we would be um bringing forward a full um plan for a replacement. And for the second one, I'll turn to to Adam, I think, to talk about the difference of the $200,000. >> Sure. Um the 200 thou $250,000 for the accessibility modifications project uh refers to the accessibility mods program that is just a recurring project that happens um every year. They do have a balance in a prior program that can fund some recurring items. Um they do have a plan to to spend the the annual request that they get, but some of it can be delayed a little bit in order to fit in service counters if needed. um the the administrator um recognizing the importance of the service counters decided to pump it up a little bit, throw a little bit more money in there. >> Um thank you. That was really helpful. Um and then just two other comments I was going to share that I also support, you know, the things with HHS are so dynamic right now that this feels like the right approach. Um so thank you for that. And um I wanted to echo Commissioner Lundy's comments about uh the legislature uh and what the future may hold with them uh and indicate that the district 10 meeting has been a sort of a lively AMC district 10 meeting has been a place of lively discussion. Um, Commissioner Anderson and I have been able to attend and participate for Henipin and there's, you know, this issue is very much on the radar of AMC and on on the minds of other counties and there's a broad understanding which I appreciate that, you know, what happens to uh the counties listed will happen to any county possibly in the future. So, I'm glad to hear that from ANC and I know that we'll be uh continuing to push. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. >> Thank you, Chair Gotel and Chair Weinberg. Thank you so much. Um, I am very excited. I've always appreciate this particular hearing >> because you all are VIPs. This is the only hearing where residents and the administrator get to kind of, you know, go headtohead a little bit. Um, which is which is thrilling. You know, we don't get out much over here. Okay. Congrats on the full compliment. that has been a goal for two or three four years. So, congrats and thank you for the feedback. Uh I always appreciate the feedback you provide. In 2019, it was about libraries, which of course is consistent to today if there is a way if it's January 2027 for Franklin. I can see that why the 2027, but I appreciate your pushing specifically for that site with uh the complication that we understand with the service demand. Um, I also appreciate your feedback around environmental impact and financial um, impact. As Commissioner Green has already noted what was uh, what's heartening about your feedback on that slide is you did not ask for feedback for disparity elimination, which means we've been quite effective at over the last years as expressing why there is a financial gain in addition to a values and mission gain. Um, and we can absolutely do that for climate action and zero waste. we quite literally must on behalf of our youngest residents and for sure uh residents we haven't had a chance to meet yet. Um we share your your commitment to only critical projects. So I wanted you said that here you said that in the in it was written down. I saw the word flexibility a lot. I appreciate your encouragement that we need to be planning with flexibility. Um so I'll I'll riff a little bit from what Commissioner Lundy was also sharing. We are very proud to have not had layoffs as an organization. We do not believe that we will shrink our way through this particular moment because counties have a counteryclical role with residents when residents are in need. Our our services are needed more. So we share that commitment for only critical projects. Um part of that is by way of revenue. You've heard two colleagues say that. Uh we're looking to establish revenue. We we've been doing that with transit and housing. We're seeking to do that with health. Um, I'm personally quite u motivated to learn a lot more about uh tiff districts, anything that shrinks or excuse me, anything that increases strain towards property tax burden, which of course is a central aspect of of your um feedback and um consolidation has been been a big part. So, I just want to share that publicly here. We've been talking about consolidation. We're thinking about that in our own shop. We're thinking about that with um partner organizations. And I personally believe we should be doing that with other jurisdictions. Um, which makes me super unpopular with other jurisdictions. But it it is necessary in this moment when we are utilizing the people's funds to ensure that we are you know thinking broadly about who receives the services not not only the jurisdiction that has that authority or that decision-m. So, um, thank you for, uh, for for all of that and I wanted to offer, um, gratitude for for your leadership there. Um, and then just a couple of, uh, things on the presentation and whatnot to staff and I will be >> on my way, I think. So, on slide nine, it would be nice to know what we are at, not just the guideline. So, um, my understanding is on slide nine, we are not hitting all of these, um, debt service guidelines. >> Uh, >> is that in the book or can you direct me what page it is in the book so I can see it all in one spot there? >> Yes. Uh, Madam Chair and commissioners, uh, yes, it's in the book on page 33. >> Yes. >> Um, but it also on that slide it does show the guideline in light gray. >> Yeah, but you said it was 11% here. It was actually not like um there's the guideline and then there's actuals. >> Oh, the actual amount. Yes. >> Like uh in the future or just in general, it'd be kind of nice to >> understand how close we are or not to said guideline. >> Correct. >> For this one. So, I just wanted to express that. I can look here, but I you had verbally said um that we don't hit the 15% in the forecast. So, I wanted to express that. >> Yep. It said 11.4%. Is that the number you're looking for? >> That was the number I was that I that I thought I saw. Okay, cool. >> It's right above Yeah, right above the guideline in the bowl. >> Okay, just kidding. Because I could just be totally wrong on something I'm looking for. We're moving forward. Moving forward. I'm a person too, everyone. Um Um Okay. And then for uh for HHS, it says 158 million here, right on this one, slide 12. So no inatient tower at all is included. I just want to be no just that's a significant that's a significant aspect to note. >> So included in this is 108 plus 25 plus 25. So that means it's asset preservation which is this is significant asset preservation anyway. >> I I did not look at my 2025 books or previous books but this this is easily exceeding past asset preservation if we were to look at history. And then just the 50 million for parking ramp. Is that accurate? is 158. >> Correct. You're correct. >> So I I I think that that's a little bit misleading for what we are likely to spend with respect to the hospital. So I know it's because we don't want to mislead. So we're putting it at zero. So I support that. Um so I don't know how we want to think about forecasting. I saw that in your annual in the annual report on page 11. I think it was you mentioned in here the the the recommendation from CBTF to include inflation factors for capital projects essentially having more accurate forecasting. So I I just want to say out loud that this Henipin healthcare system is just a really under reported figure potentially by the hundreds of millions or billions or something. So >> you want to comment on that? Yeah, cuz cuz it just it makes this slide it makes this paper look >> this this this slide is already looking how it looks. >> Mhm. >> And so if if it's that if it's that um >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> You need to turn your mic on, please, Adam. Thank you, >> Chair Gotel. Commissioner Fernando, thank you for the question. I'm going to have Adam first kind of walk through what is in the book that's specific to HHS that um identifies because part of this is the delayed with the parking ramp >> and then what's not in here is the inpatient tower right >> Adam you want to go ahead this >> uh yes uh so uh uh madam chair and commissioner Fernando like you had mentioned the the the health plan consists really of just the two projects in future years it's the preservation project which has grown quite a bit and then the parking ramp replacement. So, the last $50 million of the $120 million. We don't show the bed tower in here um as the the plan is to fund that. Number one, if we were to put it in here, we would be way over our debt guidelines. And so, we need to adjust those, have a conversation about the debt guidelines before we can really look at what we can do with property tax funding for that. Um secondly, we're also hoping to find other revenues for that project which would then not affect our debt guidelines. >> Um yeah, >> the decision makes sense. I'm just flagging that that this is a this would be a material difference. And for those following at home, I remember in 2019 when I looked at my first kind of campus HHS plan and Commissioner Callison at the time said literally, "Good luck." She said, "Good luck, Irene. I don't know when that will get built." And so I just want to keep an eye on how that is being portrayed. Um so as to not miss signal any sort of closure so as to not miss I mean >> hospital is an important asset for which we care deeply about and we'll receive investment. And so if the plan is um other revenue source which is certainly been the wishes from the the deis that's wonderful but I wanted to flag that. Uh, speaking of the legislature, um, I support the delaying of courts projects is what I heard. Um, I'm going to bring back something that Commissioner Lundy said a few sessions ago of just the total financial picture between us and the state. You know, we we fund a lot with the courts for which we are very appreciative of the opportunity to ensure that justice can be pursued by our residents, etc. And in a time period where there's just a lot of money that's going to be exchanged, what is the total cost of um what our property taxpayers are contributing to are partnering with the state fun for the state functions? And then um potentially how do we speak to the state or legislators about you know potential costs of disruption. I mean I look at like blue line blue line is well is quite funded in here. There were some legislative efforts last year to, you know, just conclude all blue line efforts. That's layoffs. That's that's just so much disruption and and clearly we're seeking to keep services continued. So, in a in a in an unusual and unprecedented set of dynamics that we're facing into 2026, we have to like have the math ready, I think, to really express what it is that we are contributing or doing. and and and why I was kind of um you know we are only looking from our property tax perspective, but again people are using this as a signal for for what is to come and so how are we just in in a a a more kind of mutual um understanding with our other jurisdictional partners around the investments that each jurisdiction needs to make to ensure the health continued health transportation services etc. Am I landing in a diplomatic enough manner for everybody? Great. We love that. And then the last thing I will say is um just for recycling and recovery solid waste. I've already express expressed this to staff. For anything that we do with solid waste, the local land use authority needs to be quite in lock step with us. and we have not yet been able to achieve that with the cities that we are theorizing this activity to occur in. Um, and that tension point is going to come forward and I would prefer for us to arrive at that tension point together with a resolution versus it um become, you know, a a a larger kind of dynamic that might not allow us to continue the important service of solid waste collection. And with that, Madam Chair, I'm complete. Thank you. >> Any any comments on >> Okay. All small topics. I mean, go ahead. >> Commissioner Anderson, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, I'm I think I just want to touch on uh or maybe get some more information. I'm kind of jumping off on comment that you made on better forecasting. I want to better understand some of the assumptions that we're making on the debt service as a percent of the tax levy in outy years and what our assumptions are about what the increase of the levy is for those out years. Um you know are we assuming a 5% are we assuming 8% are we assuming 3%. Um, I would like to better understand how that how that fits in so that I can better understand how like our assumptions of where our debt capacity within that falls. >> Please add, >> Madam Chair and and Commissioner Anderson, I can answer that. Um, right below the debt guidelines table on page I3, you can see the notes and assumptions and it lays it out down there. Um, you're talking about the property tax levy. We're assuming a 4% levy uh year after year after this year, which is um obviously it's it's lower than than what we're proposing this year, but it but it's um >> Oh, I see. That's in this >> Yeah. >> U market value or in the in the property. Okay. I see. Okay. So, that that the property tax levy, that one um affects the green um debt service levy as a percentage of the property tax and generally is a tight one for us because we're always trying to keep the property tax levy low. So, this that's generally the the guideline we're always struggling to hit in the out years. But um the other the other guidelines you can see estimated market value um were around 1% in the last couple of years and we're ratcheting that up one and a half% over a couple of years back to 4%. So that affects the blue guideline. So even with it down to 1% we're still under the guideline currently and and forecasted to stay under there. Mhm. I I appreciate that. And you know, I think having um or trying to validate better those assumptions to >> make sure that they are consistent in line with historical patterns or have uh some kind of like if they are outside of what historical patterns have been, what is the justification for a deviation other than we hope that it's like that? you know, like uh not to not to say that that's like it's all wishes, but uh I know I I hope that we grow at, you know, 4% even if we haven't been recently. Um so, no, I really appreciate that. I also want to say like I appreciate the uh trying to limit this to core absolutely necessary um investments. Um we are facing this really unprecedented time of really just a lot of uncertainty. The needs are growing. Um the health care system as we were just talking about I think we need to make sure that we are uh positioning ourselves even more securely in the how do we make sure that we are um prepared for that kind of historical investment. I really think that, you know, this kind of piggybacks on the comment that you made, Commissioner Lundy, about the state, the the hospital is a statewide asset and they should be a part of the funding of that uh of the solution for it. Um, and if the state is continuing to uh redirect revenue away that they have directed towards us into their own pet projects. Um, it is going to further destabilize our ability to provide services to our residents that uh that the state often expects us to deliver. Um, and so I think that we need to make sure that we are both positioning ourselves very carefully in terms of what projects we are uh funding and uh you know how we're preserving our our assets to make sure that we are um well within our debt guidelines. I'm not personally very comfortable with adjusting our numbers up uh to increase our debt capacity. Um we've been very careful in terms of how we've maintained our debt capacity for a very long time and shifting that I think carries some risk that I'm a little cautious on. Uh, and so I really want to make sure that we're exhausting our um everything else before we go down that road. Um, including different revenue sources and making sure that uh we are informing our state and federal partners fully the impact uh that their decisions are having on us. Um, so but otherwise I I like where this is at. I like where you're going. I really appreciate the the amount of effort um that is put into this. And you know, the more you come out to District 7, let me know. Happy to uh show you around. You know, we have libraries out there, too. So, >> any comments for Commissioner Anderson? Okay, Commissioner Eden, >> thank you. Um, thank you for the presentation and thank you to Carolyn and both in my district for your service. >> Um, I would love to speak about human services and maybe I'm missing something here. Um, so I'll start with that and then maybe somebody can fill me in. So 42% of our budget is health and human services. And one of the things I don't see in this capital improvement is us addressing and I will just tell the committee on a daily basis the number one reason I am contacted outside of property taxes for my district is is somebody that is struggling to get economic supports. And what I don't see in an investment in fixing how this program is delivered and how our rejection rate is still pretty high. Um, which means we're doing something in my mind not quite right. We people want to know what they qualify for. When people think of the county, when I used the county growing up for services on my own or when anybody thinks of the county, they think of the services that they need. And what I I I mean I get that we're investing in all these buildings, but capital investment can also include it and restructuring of uh important programs. And so I would love us to speak to of those 300 million less that what we um received. Chair Weinberg, you said there was 300 million less that we did not go with. Did we get requests on how to improve this system? and tell me more because if not then we I I feel like we need to figure that out because that is a problem to me. >> It's you know our policy brain should always look for compliments but it should look for problems and for me that's not sitting quite right. >> Please chair commissioner Edison thank you for the question. So, as Adam indicated, we did not receive this year um any significant increased. However, as indicated, I have had the opportunity to present to um our CBTF fund multiple times around human services needs and I think even within the last year, there were some modifications. So, infrastructure for for a few pieces capital budget has provided is some of the space in the entryway to allow for modifications for better um resident flow. One of the critical pieces that this budget has supported in prior years is and it's our technology access center and so building out that capacity for residents so that there's actually physical space in our human service centers that are located throughout the county. And so mo this these budgets have supported significant infrastructure in the human services area that allows um residents to have access to services closer to their homes and their communities. um technology to allow access even in from their own home and not coming into a building. And then making the buildings accessible for the residents we serve. That includes the entry space as well as um one of the critical spaces that we have found with technology changing is the technology access center. And so that has been work um that's been underway. It's also included slight modifications and I can ask Adam to speak to some of those pieces and that we do have ongoing um modifications that may not be represented here. >> Uh yeah, the um chair, madame chair and commissioner um yes the you know this the the investment in the human service centers all came through the capital budget. Um this was about uh five to 10 years ago where we um we built out all the lease space and and some of the uh spaces that we purchased for human service center their their service delivery model. What's in the CIP this year is um going back and retouching some of the back office space um for the their updated service model and and those we felt were less critical at this juncture. Um so it was not uh from what we understand the uh client-f facing spaces it does not that does not um address any technology in the capital budget and that's always a tricky thing to put in the capital budget considering technology changes so often. These are 20-year bonds that we generally use. So we want to make sure whatever we're investing in is going to last um 20 years. >> So with that um thank you. I appreciate that. So Maxis we've been trying to replace right at the at the state are trying to have upgrades for years for years right it's a major technology advance advancement and I while I came from the state and I'm still like well you know the state comments I ag I I do agree that if we're going to wait you know let the county run itself but the reality is is if we I think we should be figuring out how we can do a pilot the rejection imagine if you're a person again 40 42% of our budget imagine if you're a person and not everybody PS anymore goes to actual physical spaces. They're they're online. They're applying to things. My mom is a person with a disability. She doesn't drive. She doesn't have a car. She never has. So getting on the bus and she's applying online or I'm helping her. So it I guess a good gauge is it's not always the physical building and it's a major technology advancement. 5 years ago we invested in it. I promise you maybe it's improved. It's not better. It's not better to the extent that we don't have those people that are calling frantically saying, "Oh my gosh, I I've been rejected. My son is my son's been rejected. Um, he's kicked off. We don't have food assistance." So, this stuff is happening. And I don't see it reflected in our capital investment. And maybe it's hard to do it. Maybe it is. But I ultimately would love to see us have something in there more than the hospital. for me it it feels like a it feels like a gap that doesn't doesn't sit quite right. Um and so with that again, good job. I just if we're not getting the solicitations for the projects, I think that we should create a task force to figure out how we're going to do it better because right now it's not working in the way that I think it could. And if that's going to come out of capital improvements, great. If it's going to come out of something else, great. But it's it is something that we actually need to move the dial on. Go ahead, Chair Gotel. Commissioner Eden, thank you. Um, a few pieces um within that um this first of all, in regards to that technology, the county board has provided significant support for technology where the county has a the um authority and so um and you'll hear more about some of the presentation coming in our budget briefing. So there are the county's investment in the electronic um records management um and our other our our phone system and those pieces where county has the capability. It is one of the conversations counties have had. You're right. Our state system, there's been an ongoing platform around system modernization in our state platforms. Minnesota state supervised, county administered. And so it is in regards to statutory statutory authority. Those are state systems. Counties have been at the table. And there is a conversation exactly what you just indicated. How much of it is is a state buildout? How much of it is a different conversation and a partnership with counties? The legislature has allocated funding for system modernization. Counties are at the table having those discussions and in there is the question how much interoperability needs to be part of the dialogue which allows counties to build reflective what their needs is. But that also should include then the funding for system modernization needs to follow that. And so some of the state funding, there are federal funding and state funding for technology and systems um modernization that is sitting at the state because the state ultimately has actually the authority and the role and for counties it would be a policy discussion and a financing discussion around those systems. Absolutely. >> Which is again why I would love to see it in something like this because the reality is if we continue to wait for the state, we might be waiting for a really long time and the only people that suffer by that are the people that need help the most. So that's all I have. Thank you, >> Commissioner Conley. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so thank you, Chair Weinberg, and thank you to our task force. I really appreciate the work that you do. And again, this is also my favorite part because you get to chime in on a really big budget, really big projects. I'm going to talk about two things. Thank you so much. Um, first and foremost, for your comments about the Franklin Library. I want to give um some perspective of the neighborhood that Franklin Library sits in. So, raise your hand if you've been to the Franklin Library. All right. Uh more than I thought. Love it there, don't you? Hey, it's where we got our me and my family got our library cards. It's where we go see the llamas every year. We love Franklin Library. But I do want to talk about Ventura Village, which is the community where it sits. The 2020 census demographics show that in that community, 60% of residents speak English as a second language. 74% of residents in Ventura Village, where this library sits, identify as communities of color. That's 52% black or African-American, 5% Native American, 17% Hispanic or Latino. The median income in this community is $32,000 annually. 40% of people who live in this community live below the poverty line. 84% are renters. That is why we were very loud about Franklin Library last year and why I support the push to move up the study to next year. And I'll tell you why. I would like to know more about the facility master plan, how we take an equity approach to it, how we might look uh through a lens of disparity elimination when it comes to that facility master plan because in my opinion what Franklin Library library has gone through in just the last 12 months is a whole lot more than um we have seen at other libraries. So 4 to 7 years is a very long time for this library in particular uh to perhaps receive uh an idea for renovation or be rebuilt. Uh it should stay where it is, but like what does that look like? Which is why I support moving that study to next year. Franklin Library deserves it. They've they are in a community where we would consider like a prioritized community based on some of the data I just read off to you. these are this is the the Franklin Library is like the foundation of this neighborhood. Um and so we should invest in it. So so I want to know one the facility master plan as a whole I'm not as familiar with as I should be but it's it seems like a very long plan. Franklin Library is in it. It seems like with uh administrator Wentley you want to move it to 27 just to align with that. But I need to know more about the plan overall because does it take this lens of equitable development? Does it take the lens of disparity elimination? Because I can think of a number of ways that Franklin Library specifically should be moved up. And uh I also support the CBTF recommendation around the sheriff's lockers not being a critical project right now, but it's still in your budget, Administrator Wentland. And if it's not a critical project and it's $200,000, well, the Franklin study is also $200,000. So, could we not flip that around? >> Some thoughts there. Some thoughts there. I wholeheartedly support moving up the study to 2026. It's a new capital project. I see that there's an opportunity uh if we think that the sheriff's locker plan is not a critical project and and could be potentially delayed, then we take the 200,000 that's in the budget for 2026 and move that to the Franklin plan. Um so again, I just want to thank you for how you have uplifted and how you spoke about this library. It's a it's um I've already said enough. It's a wonderful space. I love it there and I want to see it invested in. Um, so I don't know if you have comments now before I go to >> Please. Chel Commissioner Connley. Thank you. So, first I'm looking to Adam to confirm we did remove the sheriff's locker. So, it is not the administrator's recommendation. >> And then in regards to the followup because it is a pretty comprehensive plan. Staff can follow up and provide the plan and further follow up on that and and county administration will look to recommendations of whether or not we can make modifications to move this and what that could look like. So, we will evaluate. >> Yeah. And thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Administrator Wentland. And and to me, this is this is an an equity issue. I can probably say that of our library system in and of itself, this one probably is the only one that has the demographics that it does that I read out some of the neighborhood characteristics that I that I called out. It's the only library in this community, too. And so, to me, all of that means that we need to move it up. If you've been in there, for the folks who raise their hand, you've seen how desperately we need renovation in there, how important it is to the community, how much use it gets, and and because it's a foundational piece of a community, it has its struggles. It has its problems. It has um you know, when I think of community, I think of the post office, the park, the school, the library, right? So you get a lot of people that uh congregate there and we can design the space in a way that really uh brings the community together. I'll leave it at that. I would not I would be remiss if I didn't open up this thing and move directly to the herk. So I want to appreciate that uh the task force really uh spoke about our zerowaste investments, the recycling facility, all of the things. I do want to say that I appreciate the way that administration changed the name of our herk. Uh, I think I called out last year that it was previously named HERK facility preservation and improvement. I had a lot of questions about improvement. It is now just facility maintenance. Thank you for making that change. I appreciate it. But I do question some of the dollar amounts here and maybe this is a memo or maybe you can uh attack some of it right now. I'm sure you all have looked at that we need to maintain this facility for as long as it's open. I appreciate that there is a recognition in this space that says um you know we uh fa implement herk modifications in addition to considering the cost of the project the return on investment compared to the timeline to phase out incineration. So the projects are prioritized by the following criteria and and mentions the closure date earliest of 2028. I appreciate that that's in here, but I wondered about this is $6 million every single year in every CIP and there's no sense. There's it's just rounded up to six million. Uh do we spend the whole 6 million? Do we is there money left over? What happens when we don't? Where does it go? And then um specifically in the in the binder, this page one uh 21 155, there's a figure in here of 425,000 that just says miscellaneous projects. So, there's a lot of unknown to me. I I realized that we've got to keep this thing operational. It was very clear to me uh at last year's briefing about why we keep that dollar amount in there, but it's just this like static 6 million. I'm curious, where do the leftovers go? What happens if you don't spend it all? And um and why is it so exact? Madame Chair and Commissioner Connelly, I can answer some of that. Um, so on page two of the HERK facility maintenance project, you'll see a little table in the bottom left that shows um a prior project. It's showing $6 million, uh, a little more. Um, that's where So, this is a recurring project that happens every year. We we cut them every five years and we spend those down. Um, and there's a work plan, as you noted on page two. Um, generally we round them up to keep a a nice level flow of of funding for for the work that we're doing. Um, when we can, we'll close a project and that extra money will go away. It's in the new project. Then um, as far as the work plan on page on page two, um, these are items that um, Environment Energy has identified. Um, again, they've they've kept it uh, big numbers. Um, some big items that they're doing. The miscellaneous would be just um a number of smaller items that wouldn't warrant um being named in this list, but I I can't tell you what those actually are, but they are there to maintain the building. >> Certainly. Um as a followup, just can you clarify if you don't spend the whole 6 million for 2026, you said it just goes away, but where does it go to? >> Um we generally will so for this project, it would stay in this budget. um and then they would spend it the next year and the next year and then at a certain point we would then close the project and that a budget authority would go away. We would never bond any of this um or in this instance this is enterprise income. We wouldn't use any enterprise income until expenses have have gone out the door. >> Okay. I want to make sure I understand. >> So 6 million each year 26 27 28 29 when the project is complete >> the remaining dollars are enterprise funds. They are enterprise funds. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, so we're budgeting that those enterprise funds in this project and if we close it and there's say $4 million left that goes back to the enterprise. >> Back to the enterprise. Yep. >> Okay. Um, so not right now and I'll finish up. Not right now, but uh perhaps maybe I would like to look at the last CIP and find out what was left over, what went back to the enterprise fund at the end of 2025. It would have been so this year. uh what was not spent and how much uh went back into the fund. So those are my comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Great. Great. Thank you. And now it's up to me to just I'm just first I always got to thank my colleagues here because you ask a lot of the questions I was going to ask and I always go last because I really want to give you the the floor to to do all this. Um, I just want to say that I also just appreciate that we're spending more on asset preservation at the medical center, our hospital. I think it's very necessary. I think when you look at spending and preservation in general throughout the whole county, that could be a miss if we don't put the dollars where they really belong. And lots of times in places where I see it, our schools, unfortunately, they cut that first and our schools suffer for that. We don't do that. Assets really matter here and we make them a priority. And I just want to say that I appreciate that because so does the CBTF. You make that a priority and that really matters. Um, you know, I just also want to thank you for all the work that you look at at all the projects that I look at the street projects, the bridge projects and everything like this in the book as we look at the cuts that we have to do because a lot of these stayed in and the cities really appreciate that their assets have been deteriorating for a long time and they're really counting on these projects moving forward. So, I just wanted to say that um I'm glad that there's an ad back in the Franklin uh library. Whatever works for you, administrator, please bring us, you know, if if you can push it up. If you can't, please tell us why. I I think everybody along the here appreciates that project. Um and back on that hospital, I just want to say that, you know, uh Commissioner Anderson mentioned that it's a statewide asset. It's a regional asset. Regional. This is regional. This is big. People fly people in from other places because of the things we can do for people. The hyperbolic chamber and our our burn unit and several other things that we do. Nobody else can beat us on the types of work and the research and everything we do here. So I just want to say that I just want to make that very clear. I think we all support the hospital as much as we can. There a lot of rumors about the hospital whether it'll be here or not the hospital will be here. Yeah. Just want to make sure people know that. Um, and I too support seeing a little bit more about the um, zero net energy and the climate action. I mean, I guess I'm really near to it and I know what we're doing. It'd be nice to see it just presented in the in in some of the stuff. I mean, we've been doing complete streets. We've been looking at um, close to zero net energy buildings as we build libraries and stuff right now. But but emphasizing that really makes it and how does it help with climate change and putting a beautiful park next to Southdale and that's going to retain water which we know that that site needs that kind of a storm water piece to it. So you know we're doing great things. Let's tout it too. Let's show what we're doing. I I also I also agree with some of my colleagues about consolidation. We have done consolidation and we've done it very successful. We could talk about the medical examiners building a and a lot of our colleagues really in and sister counties want to be in on these kinds of consolidations. If we present it right, if we have the right conversations, I think we could do more. Um, we've consolidated a lot of our county buildings. We've got out of bu buildings that were very poor for performers. And I'm going to say that that's that was a very hard thing and a lot of people had to move around and it disrupted a lot of people's workflow and there was, you know, complaints because people don't like change. So, I appreciate you maneuvering through that. Um, I also want to say that I support a better strategy for forecasting, too. Whatever we can do and and I I appreciate what you're working on now and I just want to say staying within the debt guidelines is very important to all of us. We set those for reasons and I don't want the state to blow us out of the water for any of those reasons and I think the state needs to step up to help us with the hospital. Again, this is a regional asset. They need to figure out how to do this. the county cannot board this hospital totally on our own and so I understand why it's not presented in this piece but I just want to say how important that is. So and just general gratitude for the time you put in as board members to this. Thank you for doing that and we appreciate it. Thank you chair. Thank you Miss Ratland. So at this time I'm going to move forward with uh the public uh part of this. Um, so we're going to open up the public hearing and if there is anybody here to testify in the 2026 capital budget and the 2026 2030 capital improvement program, please approach the microphone at this time and please state your first and last name. You have up to two minutes to provide comments. Is anyone here in the audience who would like to step forward to testify? Alternately, if you prefer to leave a recorded message, there will they will be played at the next budget hearing just like there were today, you may call 612-688-3545. A recorded message is also limited to the 2 minutes. The phone number again is 612-6883545. Again, is there anyone here who would like to testify publicly? Anyone? Seeing no one, I will um close the public hearing. So, please call in if you have questions. Um I'm we're going to take a short break. I have 1:32. You have 10 minutes. Please be back. I don't think the fees will be that long, but let's make sure we have plenty of time. That also lets our folks from the C the CBTF make their exit um without causing a lot of big disturbance. Welcome back. >> Welcome back everyone. Thank you. >> That was some lively conversation. I never knew that capital budget was going to be this exciting, huh? Who knew that? Anyway, thrilling. Thrilling. I think we all liked that. That's that quick uh break. So, we will now continue this afternoon's agenda to consider the new revised apartment fee schedule for 2026 as required by statute. I will ask Miss Jod Wetland, the county administrator, to provide us a brief summary of the changes on the proposed fee schedule. Also, representatives of the county departments are available to address any questions of the commissioners or of the public and we may have regarding these different changes on the fee schedule. Miss Wetland, would you please provide the board with an overview of the 2026 proposed revisions to the departmental fee schedules? Thank you, Chair Gotel. Commissioners, you have the packet with the schedule of proposed fee changes for 2026. By statute, you need to have a fee hearing every year before a final budget is approved. Nine county departments have proposed revised fee schedules for 2026. Departments gave thoughtful consideration to increasing fees and many of the fee increases proposed today have not changed for 5 years or more. While many increases are due to rising cost and salaries, inflation is only a part of the consideration for fee rates. departments all cons also consider the purpose of the fee, who is paying the fee, and the cost of providing the service when proposing fee rates. Seven new fees are proposed in 2026. The majority of these new fees are due to additional staff responsibilities for services the county currently engages in. There's one fee elimination proposed because the existing program will be replaced by a Minnesota healthc care program covered service. We continue to look at the impacts of fees have on our disparity elimination and climate action efforts. The memo you received highlighted key changes and Lindseay Walsh Logger, operating budget coordinator, and I are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I know colleagues probably want to comment or might have some questions on this. So, I am I got to look at my list because I try not to do it exactly the same. Commissioner Connley, I'll let you go first. >> All right. What can I do? I need that. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yes, there you go. >> Okay. Um, so thank you. I, um, wanted to just let my colleagues and administration know that I opened this book looking directly for revenue opportunities, right? And I see that there have been 20. I'm I'm going to be just >> Yes, we know. We know. >> Clear. >> Why? Cut to the chase. Cut to the chase. >> I'm surprised. I'll tell you why, David. >> Okay. Uh but uh not not on the backs of people, right? So um one question that I do have there's two I just have two. But one question that I have is on page 21 of the booklet of the budget booklet. We are in environment and energy public works looking at um all everything related to ordinances and how we collect fees. But that bottom one is really interesting to me because it stayed at zero. I know it's a property tax, but I want you to just talk me a little bit through. It says that in 1995 the county established ordinance 18 to provide funding for waste management programs including waste prevention, recycling, composting and other preferable waste management activities which we have been highlighting now for a very long time but the rate is set uh by fee hearing and is applied at the market value of taxable property in the county. So yeah, see it says property tax, but it's been at zero since 20 since 2009. So talk me through why. Uh, it seems like this is revenue for zero waste. That's how I'm reading it. So, a little bit of explanation around that would be super helpful. >> Commissioner Connley Dave McNary can provide. >> Madame Chair, Commissioner Conley, Ordinance 18 was sent 1995 and it was windy. Yeah, that's good. That's good. >> Ordinance 18 was started in 1995 when the solid waste system was much bigger than it is now. And it was really focused on providing money and waste to the Elk River Resource Recovery Project which ended in 2009. So in 2009, your predecessors decided that they would zero out that fee. And so the revenue for a smaller solid waste system comes from tipping fees. And ordinance number 15. Ordinance number 15 is a fee put on residential and commercial uh garbage bills and generates approximately $35 million. At its peak in 2009, Ordinance 18 generated around $20 million. But once the county was no longer in the Elk River project, then our expenses decreased dramatically. Hence zeroing it out. We we keep it at zero to keep it on the books in case the board ever wanted to revisit ordinance 18. >> Maybe the board might want to revisit ordinance 18. I don't know. Uh Mr. McNary, thank you for that. That uh it sounds like we're getting revenue from another source. And I was wondering why it stayed on the books if it was just zeroed out. Um but maybe it's uh an idea to revisit or rethink ordinance 18. Um now that we are really moving towards zero waste and really looking at more preferable waste management activities, composting, recycling, it says waste prevention. Um we're doing so much of that it could be time to take another look at that ordinance. And I have read ordinance 15 uh all of it. It's quite an interesting read. So thank you. Uh I have one other question and maybe this might be you so maybe not go too far but on on page 23 uh I see another opportunity here to be a little bit more bold. And so the last uh fee in that uh top um little you know fee schedule there it says excess cardboard in trash penalty for haulers. So, we've got penalties for haulers who are bringing stuff to the herk and uh other and to the recycling facility that shouldn't be there. The transfer station, I meant not the recycling, the transfer station and the herk people are bringing things that should not be there. So, we fee we there's we establish a fee uh to prevent them to incentivize them to only bring what is necessary. And what we've learned through previous uh briefings is that there's a lot of stuff in the herk that shouldn't be there. There's a lot of stuff that's getting burned that shouldn't be there. And if we could get rid of some of that, a a good chunk of that, that would reduce uh you know, our reliance on it. So, this last one, excess cardboard and trash penalty for haulers. I'm thinking back to when I visited the herk several years ago and that big gigantic claw. A lot of what was drippy and heavy was organic material, but I saw cardboard boxes everywhere. So, I'm wondering for 2026, we're going up $50. Uh, I say we double that. I'm just saying. Uh, we don't need stuff going into the Herk that shouldn't be there. Uh, maybe that incentivizes haulers to think twice about dumping cardboard that can be recycled into the Herk. And if we double that, there's an opportunity to just be bold. So, um I'm not making any uh suggestions for board action right now, but what I do see is possibility here, and it is to get out from the herk what shouldn't be there in the first place and uh increase that penalty by more than just 50 bucks for folks who are still bringing recycled material to the herk. So, any thoughts around that are I would welcome otherwise that's all I have. >> Sherotell, Commissioner Connley, thank you for that. Um, county administration will work with Lisa Cernia team to review that um and determine whether or not we would bring anything forward. >> Thank you. >> Isn't that coming before us tomorrow though or is that not >> Are those fees Sorry, I'm aware that there are many fees coming before us tomorrow. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, >> it's not coming. >> All right. >> All right. There's a lot of fees coming before tomorrow. >> Thank you. Commissioner Anderson, go ahead. You're next. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I had really just one question on the the tire drop off. Um, and the connecting this with the work that the mosquito control district does. um because they accept tires from >> from residents for zero cost uh and like it is part of their budget to recycle and dispose of of them. Um and I'm wondering if there is some kind of alignment that we could have with them. Is this an under like is this undermarket but in relative to our cost of of disposal? Um and the reason that they accept them from residents for zero cost is because there are mosquito breeding habitats. Um, and like those habitats are, you know, the mosquitoes that breed in there, uh, are home host to West Nile virus. Um and so if we can do more to help um partner with the like another agency um or if there's um like if it's if it is in line or a better deal. I would love to see how we can partner to either help them with their mission of uh in the public health realm of making sure the tires are disposed of properly. Um, and then if there is any future use of those tires that the county has uh agency in, I would love to know cuz I know like you know you go to playgrounds and you see like this playground was built from recycled tires type thing, right? like how do we partner with agencies or are we partnering with organizations directly to recycle or find uh productive uses of those tires? >> Administrator Chair Goel, Commissioner Anderson, Dave McNary, welcome back. >> Come on back. >> Way left. It's still there. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Anderson, great idea. we will reach out to the mosquito control district and see if there's some synergies between what we collect and what they collect. Um when we collect tires, we we sell them or um a tire recycler sells them. A lot of times they do work with other cities or parks. Either they'll they'll chip the rubber or they'll use full full tires. um what they decide to do with the tires is not in our control once they purchase the tires, but we can look at that as well. >> All right. Thank you. >> Great question. Commissioner Eden, are you ready? >> Um yes, sure. Uh I just had one quick. Um I actually I just want to build um to Commissioner Connley. It's on page 23 the the the excessive cardboard. Love that idea. Um I'm all in for that. And maybe even like to make it more palatable, we could do like maybe like a phase in like you know for the first few months and then all of a sudden you flip it to doubling it just because you know you're trying to be empathetic to people. But the reality is is it's true like if we don't do something about some of this >> it just it just continues. So um I really value that. Um I did want to know just out of curiosity there was the 3D printing. What is that exactly? Can somebody tell me what I mean? I'm reading it. It's like an actual specimen. >> Is this a medical exam? Okay. >> Yeah. What? What does anybody here know anything about this? If not, no worries. Just I would love a followup on exactly how we use that. >> Do we have someone who can talk to us about the 3D print? >> Of course, I asked about the most random thing. >> Can chair go tell Commissioner, we will have someone from the MU's office provide. >> Yeah. I just want to know what it's how they use it for, but other than that, yeah, it sounds >> Dr. bigger only comes at some point. >> I will not be here later this week. >> Okay. Yep. Yep. So, other questions, Commissioner? >> No, not I'm done. >> Okay. Um, Commissioner Green. >> Um, thank you. No, no questions. Just um really appreciate the ongoing effort to make sure that fees are very much in sync with our disparity elimination work. and we've come so far and we always have more to do, but this is great work. So, thank you, >> Commissioner Lendy. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just one, not so much a question, just a comment on the fees for some of these things. I always think fees should go to the place. My concern on trash is my experience with the composting fee is that the trash people just pass it on and blend the county. Um, that they'll pass it on to everyone, not the people who are the real cause of it. So, while we may want to feed really go toward a certain hauler who's got maybe two customers who they're just picking up and causing, they'll just spread it out and you know, the national haulers, trash haulers don't give a damn. They'll just send it out and they don't care. Um, that's exactly my impression, the composting. So, whatever we do, if there's a way to really say, you know, those who cause it should be the ones paying it, not the people who are doing the right stuff. Um because I anticipate that's exactly how the haulers will do it. They'll just spread the cost among everybody and then blame us, which I'm fine with. But um you know, if if you're a place that is doing things wrong, if somebody might tell you how you can do things right and save money, people tend to react that way. But if you're just everyone's fees up, they don't care. So that's my only comment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Fernando. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I also am appreciative of just the last several years what we've sought to do in terms of resident impact and financial sustainability. So a few uh a few comments. It it's clear that there is a systemic lens um like the the fee for um like prosecutors who are asking you know I mean the deterrent you know I just so it just it's it's very clear that you all are looking from a behavioral perspective and I appreciate that. Uh with respect to solid waste, I generally believe that our fees should be higher including tippy fees. Um we are the main we as a public entity really keep the market down in a lot of ways which is good for residents. And so um how we find a way to balance the behavior we need with the fees that we need. So just extending this conversation um specifically what Commissioner Lundy was sharing because I I agree with my commissioners here that we we should we could increase uh some of the fees. I think that's why the zero waste reporting is so meaningful for me. I know we're only beginning with the class one city just you know because of the hauler the significance of that particular hauler >> but that's why I want more reporting. I just want to state that like it isn't just reporting for >> punitive but we need the data. We need to figure out what is causing what is getting into our system and and how to prevent that. Um so maybe there is a recommendation cuz you know Commissioner Ed this started with Commissioner Conley but Commissioner Eden was saying that there's a phase in but I think what I'm hearing is how is it how do we make sure it's balanced? It's not unlike the um the library printing fee or the docccr calls when we shifted those it went from fees to a credit to a certain amount for printing or a certain amount if you're calling and then it's an amount. So what we did there with residents is we really you all and we all really understood what was the need and how do we kind of find a reasonable middle ground and with respect to solid waste we just really need that. Um I'm deeply concerned about the landfill capacity and other uh across the region. I'm concerned about the standards of those um facilities and we know that we're I mean we're we're cold half the year but you saw how hot it was early October, right? Like >> we are a fire away from some of these facilities where it really could be kind of a pretty dramatic um um impact and that doesn't even include kind of the water table. So the solid waste aspect I I really want to support even more creativity. Thank you all for the creativity already. And then I think I'm understanding the mortgage sale one foreclosure. Is that just is it flat now or how that that is my one question. I see that there's a shift on the foreclosure. Actually, I think I might have two questions. Let me go. What page? >> 24 I wanted to say. Is it on 24? Oh, no. 24 is the other one I wanted to say. Bounce checks before we get to foreclosure. Whose checks are bouncing? bottom of page 24 for the sheriff's office. May I ask what this is? >> And I can just share where I'm coming from. If it is a resident who does not have money and their check is bounced and then we're charging them more money, that would be hard for me. But if it's some other construction, >> do we know they have >> you can follow up too, but I >> follow chair go tell Commissioner Fernando we will follow up. That's a good one. >> And and then the and then the the question that I thought I had I I wanted to make sure I understood any of the changes to the mortgage foreclosure um and other sales. Page 25. Um and my reason for wanting verbal explanation is just because there's been a lot of shifts with respect to foreclosure implementation in recent years. >> Make sure you're next. >> Commissioners, I think we proposed a followup with the sheriff's office. Oh, same here. So page 25 is also a continuation of these charge shares. >> So it's all in that. >> Good. Thank you. Well, I look forward to followup. Thanks, Madam Chair. >> Thanks. >> Just a couple of things I want to just touch on, too. First of all, thanks. This is a really good idea about the tires and that I love your announcement. I I just wanted to say too, I think it's a really good that we're asking at least to start with Minneapolis about, you know, talking to us about zero waste, about giving us data and everything. And we do give score fundings to all the cities. So, why shouldn't they have some kind of reporting establishment and why shouldn't they be somewhat held accountability when we're giving them the money for that? And I like the idea of um increasing what we charge for the cardboard because when I was there in my last visit I saw a whole truck full come in just just all cardboard and it's just like well we need more score money funding and it's not going to come from the state this next same but there's more dollars there and that's more dollars to help our cities or do some projects that we could do to help cities to to get to that zero waste. So I'm just thinking yeah I'm okay with with doing that especially after I saw that vendor come in here. They have to know that that's not okay and they know it's, you know, it's not. But we haven't made it painful enough to be a deterrent. And so when we want things out of here and somebody brings something, let's make it a deterrent. And if we're not, we need to raise other fees for things that are coming in that we don't, let's do it. We won't get there. And we're not going to legislate oursel out of this in the next couple of times. But we could certainly trim our waist stream by just making it painful for people. and there are other alternatives that they could go to and they would start looking at them. So, it's my comment. Did you have another comment? You want >> I do just on that. Uh I think on the fees I'm probably generally supportive of using fees as a deterrent to the haulers. I completely agree with Commissioner Lundy. They are going to pass that right along to their customers and blame us. Like that is exactly what they do, right? Um, and I am a little bit hesitant on the expansion of reporting requirements to cities, especially smaller cities who don't have staff capacity. the dollars that it takes to do reporting uh especially required reporting for uh x number of things when you are a staff of three trying to run a city is really really burdensome and so I want to be extremely cautious of how we are approaching this so that we are not putting uh additional burdens on cities that don't have capacity to do it. Uh and so that's just my like let's be cautious about how we approach the the requirements if we are going to be moving into a fee structure to pay for our our solid waste management similar in nature to what like Ramsay Washington do. Their tipping fees are astronomical, right? and that is how they pay for their improvements of uh their solid waste management system. Um if we're going that way like then we don't have that you know we can just accept all the responsibility for the sorting and and figuring that out and doing that reporting ourselves. I'm not sure if we're there yet because right now we are in partnership with the cities and trying to do this in a different way than they are doing. So like if we're if we're talking about the partnership and collaboration with cities who are currently managing the waste taller contracts uh and the waste management system then I think we just have to be careful about how we proceed. >> I agree with that perspective and I think we can >> I think I think we could really do that. I think we could do something for the small cities because most of the reporting is actually through the haulers. But as we see if we do do some fee changes, we could actually offer maybe some assistance to some of those this, you know, have a small city exception >> and that might be where where we would have to try to figure out how we how we do it, how it gets reported. >> Exactly. >> Um and like calling out like yeah, how where are these problems located? How do we determine that? Um if a city doesn't have the capacity to do that. Agreed. >> You know >> um because >> all of this requires funding from somewhere. Um and >> you know we we have to make sure that we're balancing that especially in a time where so much is being required of everybody for so many different things. >> Agreed. >> Very good comment. Any other last comments here? Go ahead commission. >> I just want Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add to that and I think it's important um I think that we are starting with cities of the first class in that in that reporting and I think what we learn from that could shape how we help our smaller cities. So I just learned that cities of the first class are like Minneapolis Duth I think there's a couple more >> St. Paul we only have one in Hip County >> in Henipin and that's Minneapolis. So, I think starting there gives us a good framework of what smaller cities who, you know, bring less trash to the herd. Um, could need in terms of that. Uh, but starting with our biggest, you know, trash producers makes the most sense to me. >> Okay. Any other comments? Seeing none, um, we're actually going to open up the public hearing here. If you're here to testify on the proposed fee changes, please approach the microphone at this time. You'll be asked to state your first and last name. You have up to two minutes to provide comments. Um, is there anyone here who would like to approach the podium at this time and speak? Again, this is a public hearing portion of this. Alternately, if you'd like to leave a recorded message, which you will be played at the next budget hearing, you may call 612-688-3545. A recorded message is also limited to 2 minutes. The phone number is 612-6883545. Again, is there anyone in the audience here that wishes to testify? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. So, since there are no more questions from the committee, we will move on to item 4 A, which is old business. I would take a motion to lay over this item until 12:00 p.m. noon at Wednesday, October 22nd when we will reconvene for budget hearing on the 2026 proposed budget to consider resident services and operation lines of business. >> Moved. >> It's moved and seconded. Any comments? All those in favor signify by I. >> I. Motion is received. Um item five is the open forum. We'll still have an open forum for this besides the public uh hearings. Members of the public watching this budget hearing can call in and leave recorded comments that will play for the next board at the next budget hearing. If there is not enough time to play all the co comments, the recordings are sent to the commissioners. Your comments should be related to a specific budget hearing. Recorded messages will also need to meet the following standards, which are the same standards for in-person comments. Callers need to state their first and last name for the record. Callers will need to adhere to the rules of decorum as outlined in the posted guidance for addressing the board. Comments must be kept to 2 minutes uh in limit. Uh comments that are made beyond the two limit will not be heard. To record a comment, call 612-688-3545. The line will be open for 4 hours starting at the end of this budget hearing. The time is currently I'm going to call it 2:15. So that would be um uh 6 6:15 for 4 hours of time. So the lines will be open for 4 hours. Again, the number is 612-688 3545. If you want to send an email to your commissioner or you want to meet with them as well um or speak to a a board meeting, please attend the annual truth and taxation meeting on December 2nd. That's coming right up at 6:00 p.m. So, this was the proposed 20 26 proposed budget and information on this hearing has been available at www.henipin. us/budget. I want to thank Miss Wetland. Um, thank you very much. Um, Chair Weinberg, she's already uh left and all the other staff that are here. Thank you for being here and helping us through this great conversation. Uh, we are now in recess. Thank you. >> Bring it in. >> Oh, nice.