Okay. All right. It's 7:00. Let's go ahead and call the Tonka Bay City Council work session budget session to order on August 18th, 2026 at 7:00 PM. In attendance, we have council members Ecklund, Bross, Ottum, and Jennings, in addition to our city administrator and our public works supervisor. So with that, let's go and dive right in. Tiffany. I guess we'll start with the final presentation of what we're presenting for a 2027 proposed budget and tax levy. Tax levy would be $2,981,418.25, which is a 23.2% tax capacity percentage. For a median home in Tonka Bay, it would be a $764 per year increase, or $63.67 per month. And for a $500,000 home, it would be $311 per year at $25.91 per month. So, question. I'm just looking at... So if you look at H12 and H13, how does that correspond to Q, S, and T nine and 10? It's related to... Is this T? It's- All three of those columns. If you look at the taxes on the median home and the taxes on the 500,000, none of those match the what's below. Well, this is the increase. Ah, okay. Got it. And these are the three scenarios. Got it. What we're presenting is- The difference between '26 and '27. Yes. So 26 and the kind of median proposed median 2027. So this column doesn't include any public works capital. This project includes all of the public works capital projects, and this is that median, the middle of calling some of those things and getting that 10-year CIP right-sized. So on the first column, column Q, what changed from there? Last time I remember it was 21.3. I'm not sure what's changed from this. We have to look at it. It might be some of the capital CIP expense. Yeah. My understanding was that we were at 21.3 for the base, and then when we added the capital for public works, it jumped to 23.2. So it's a couple points down. Yeah. I'm not sure of the question of that difference. Is there something you want to look at, at the worksheet at all? Well, I'm not really sure what it changed so much. So, unless we bust open the worksheet. So everybody got a chance to talk about this last time, and I apologize for not being here last time. But at the same time, I thought it was just a probability bet that I ended up planning something else, so I wasn't here. But I thought it would give everyone a good opportunity to sort of discuss and digest the budget without me potentially jamming things through. So hopefully we had a chance to really kind of work through things. Yeah. It was helpful he stepped through everything column by column. So I'm thinking that the major changes here between Q and S are column S includes kind of... And Tom, you were here last time? Yeah. Yep. And it sounds like you guys came to a consensus on breaking up, taking a look at the capital plan for public works to collect the vacuum truck. I think that's busted up over three years now, right? And it gets us to 2029 or something. This wasn't in 2030. Yeah. Schroeder doesn't want to do it right away. Excelsior's... We need to sit down and have a discussion with that, but we need to have something on paper so we start planning for it, so it's not like we're holding them up when we do decide to do it. So last year, we bought a truck for $105,000. This year, we're buying another truck for $115,000. And next year we're buying another truck for $110,000. So this is actually one truck split over two years. Yeah, we're kind of banking it, I think. Last year's truck too, didn't that come to 85 or 87? No, it was 102. Yeah. It came in at, I think, 109 or whatever with the plow and everything. But he skipped getting a lawn mower to get the plow put on it so that we had a backup plow truck. So that's one truck. And that's probably going to be a little bit short. Yeah. And when I'm looking at that, and the way I'm interpreting this, Doug, is the Freightliner's big. It's a big truck. And- No, I know. It just looks like- It's- ... two trucks we're buying. Yeah. And I think this one's from 2011, so it's 15 years old. And we beat the Freightliner up pretty good. I know that. Yeah. So- Well, I'm just saying that looks like we're buying two trucks this year and next year. Are we buying one truck and spreading it over two years? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, yeah. Okay. I'm okay with that. It just looked like two trucks. Yeah. Basically, you got to buy the cab and chassis, and that takes anywhere from three to nine months to get. Mm-hmm. And then you have to buy the body and the plows to go on it. So that's the next year. Okay. It's typically an order, you know? Yeah. So are we spending the money this year or over two years? Over two years. So we're going to collect $115,000 from next year's levy and $115,000 from '28 levy. We're going to order the truck in spring of 2027, hoping it arrives January or February of '28. So we're budgeting for this over two years. Yeah. So I think the way it'll hit the budget is that we'll collect the 115 this year, and it'll make our reserves go up because it'll just drop to bottom line. But then we'll spend the full 230 in '28. Good. So we're buying two trucks. We're buying one truck. We're just- One truck for 230. Yes. Okay. Okay. I got it. And I think it was to try and soften the blow, so we didn't take the full 230 in '28. Yeah. So that third number includes essentially those three, which is another $280,000. Wow. If we would've paid for the jet truck all in 2027- Okay. So we're doing the jet truck ... we're- We're- ... similar situation where, we're going to split that over, spread that over a three-year period. Mm-hmm. Looking to order that in 2029 and pay for it over three years before we receive it. So where's that number in 2027? We're spreading it over three years. Right. So this is a third of that number. Okay. Yeah. We share the jet truck. This is still a little squishy because we don't quite know when we're buying it, but we split the jet truck with Excelsior and Shorewood. So we're just trying to plan a little bit better and smooth some of these costs over four years rather than prepare for a single spend. There were some improvements with paving and all. Where is that? Right here. Stripping, crack sealing, general patching, and seal coating. Okay. Where's the overlay? Okay. Where's the park they want to repave? The park. They want to add to Mantol Park. I don't know where that-- You mean- Well, that was part of- Chris Beach ... right. It's part of the 2024 project. So it's included in that bonding and that funding. So it's- No, I don't understand why we're repaving that park for $30,000. If y'all want to drive over there and look at the pavement, why are we spending $30,000? We're expanding it. So the original plan, there's a grass patch that's closer to that building that's there that they sell God knows what. It's expanding the parking lot. It's adding more spaces. So we're actually adding on to the south end of the parking lot in Mantol. And that's been part of the master plan of the park since day one. But is that money coming out of Parks and Recs? It's coming out of the 2024 SUIP project, the bonding that was- Why is the Parks and Recs paying for it? $30,000. I'm okay with putting it in the SUIP. I think they're in a position right now, you might be able to speak better to this, but they're trying to save up right now for the hockey rink. I think that's the next big line item for them. And- How much do they have now? Any idea? I'll take a look at it. I thought they spent all of their 150 because they're still managing through some of those projects. Certainly, they're saving for that hockey rink, but a lot of the projects are-- They're trying to manage some of the smaller ones together, so they're paying- We haven't- They're spending a lot of that in-house ... seen any report from Parks and Recs. Yeah. We're expecting them to come in September, so that they're- We're almost through the whole year, and we have seen nothing from them, and we say they're spending money? I'm at a loss with this Parks and Recs. What's going on? Anyway, okay. Anybody else have any more, and then- Well- We'll see. But I think with Parks and Recs, too, it's not super dynamic. They tend to look a number of years out. If they do a project, it's one, maybe two years, so we're- Well, then they should have money. But they just spent the money on the playground. And they've asked all along who's going to be funding the parking lots and things like that, and probably four or five times we've confirmed that it's coming out of that 2024 project. So that's why when they put together their CIP, which they'll be coming and talking about in September, they're actually forecasting a lot of additional things instead of having to bring it to this council. But the parking lot has always been promised that it was part of that project. Which parking lot? The one that we're talking about. Mantol Park, Mantol. Yeah. Are we going to extend that finally? Yes, that's the plan. Yep. It's been a long process. Okay. Yeah. That needs to be done. Now, is that coming out of Parks and Recs? No, it's coming out of the 2024 SUIP. When's that going to come out? Well, we still have funds from that project. Yeah. Okay. So yes. It's coming out from that. Yep. Okay. We need to know how much at the next meeting how much Parks and Recs has in their kitty. I know right now it's not a large number because they're paying for the playground equipment that was- I thought it was paid for already. I thought that was paid for. But we can certainly bring that information. Yeah. I thought that was paid for. We got to give a deposit, and then we have to apply for payment. Yeah, I think the rough estimate is, I think the playground equipment was fully paid for. The docks generate roughly 120 a year, 130 something. 150. So- A little over $150,000 a year. But it's not enough oftentimes to do the next round of capital projects. So I think this year they're just treading water this year. They're- And then they'll get another $150,000 in March. Yep. So that's another $300,000. Yep. Which should put them in a position to move forward on some of their larger projects. I think what they have now is allowing them to move forward on some of the bigger things. So they basically have to save it all. We need to see where they're spending $300,000 on our little parks. Okay. I'll wait till September. I think eventually some of that Parks and Recs has to come into the city once we get this park building finished. Okay. Anyway, go ahead. So I guess, can we take a look at the 2027 worksheet, because I'm just curious how it went down. I'm curious. Because we were at 21.3, so something came out. It might have come down. It might have been this number where I had put the full 225 of the bonding of the SUIP project. I'm going to type in 225 here and we'll see what it does. Okay. Yeah. What are you looking at? 301? Because I'm going to sell- The 330 ... Q7 20.4. Oh. And actually, some of this might have been, I had new data for the tax capacity. Mm-hmm. That actually might have been- Ah ... part of that conversation as well. Got it. That would change. So we were probably using that number as the- That's good. It means our tax base increased. Yeah. So spreads it out more. Thank you. Well, if it's helpful at all, you guys talked about the capital stuff for the works. I was comfortable with the budget when we last spoke. I think that's the last few minor tweaks. Yep. I don't know where you guys stand on this at all, but from my perspective, I think this is a good preliminary budget to the state. I'd agree. What do you guys think? Which one? The 2568 or the 2981? The one that's highlighted right now, so- Okay, 2981. What were we last year? 17. As far as with the rate? Yeah, 17. So your rows 12 and 13, do they correspond with column S? Is that the difference? What do you mean? There's- Oh, yeah. It's a big bite, but we're doing a lot of stuff. We're doing a lot of stuff in infrastructure. Like I said, I've beat this horse to death. We didn't have any money set aside for capital. We continue to have water main breaks. If we choose not to do it, we're going to continue to have breaks, which are expensive. And if we wait, it'll only get worse and suddenly time. So it's- Is this including that? Yes. Okay. So this gets us- And this includes- This includes everything ... the work on the three roads, right? Yep. So this includes Sunrise, Old Apple- Yeah ... Wildhurst, police, fire, public works, general admin, the parking lots, everything. This is everything. Does that include this parking lot out here, John, on top? I don't know. We haven't had a discussion on it. No, it's in there. Okay. At least that's what I saw in there. Well- But we talked to John about this, too. We have leftover funds from our SUIP project that should be able to cover that. Okay. And talk with Danny. Yeah. My only concern about that line, and one of the things that I worry about, is that we're going to need a staging area now for Wildhurst and Sunrise. We redo it, we potentially beat it up. And, we need to understand that going in. It's pretty beat up as it is. It's really old, and even if we stage things there, it's not going to be in the same condition it is now. But, I also want to be cognizant of not throwing good money after bad. Okay. However, we don't really have any other staging spots in the city, and we continue to do our capital plan. That means we sit on that parking lot for another decade, and it's rough out there. Can we just hold it for a year? Well, see, our other option for staging is the front road like we had here- Yeah ... for Wildhurst and Old Orchard. But then we can use Lakota Park, just to the lake of the tennis court parking lot. We might lose a couple of those ash trees in there. I think there's a couple ash trees in there we'll probably lose anyways. But they'd have room to store a lot of stuff down there. I don't expect these road projects next year to go into the following year. Mm-hmm. But I, uh- So it'd be a matter of restoration in the park, so we'd probably have to put up a snow fence or something, to keep the people from playing over there or whatever, a barrier of some sort. But- Then why can't we use this out here and just wait until next year to pave it, if they need a staging area? But I think where I'm coming from is our capital plan, we're going to continue to improve roads through '23 to '25. So if we wait till next year, we'll just stage on it the year after that, and then we'll stage on it another couple years after that- Yeah ... stage on it again another couple years after that. So it's kind of a... Because this parking lot- There's never a good time ... I mean, it's rough. It's really, really rough. Can we go back to the capital? Because I think if you scroll down... Yeah, so we've got the dock parking lots in there. What is that under the dock parking lot? The Ryla turnaround? Yeah. What, are we going to do pave that? It seems okay. Well, that was asked to be paved in the spring, but the trucks go down there and everyone turns around down there. They tear it all up, and then they track mud all over Ryla Lane. Okay. I guess it's up to you guys. I just told them to get quotes on that. Yeah, and this pretty much covers all of this because Crescents, we'd probably do a mill and overlay on that. But yeah, this covers the dock. Does this cover the... Because the other thing that we were thinking about, too, was in front of City Hall. But I guess, if anything, that's the one I'm one wait on because we can stage there. Mm-hmm. It's in pretty good shape. It's got areas- It needs to be patched. That dirt sitting on there really tore it up. But if we can go in there and get a loader patch, it just looks like it's five pound on there, but that's what patching looks like. The only reservation I have, and it would be nice to do it, is that, it is right in front of City Hall, so that's what we see is when we drive by. But I also don't want to get out way over our skis. We're already planning on quite a bit. We can just take and do a ball coat on that, make it all black and look similar. I don't know what that costs. Um. That'd be more cosmetic than anything. But it's a very cheap alternative to come in there and probably an hour, hour and a half to have it done. Yeah. Hm. I'm okay with this. So it's pretty much unless anybody has major reservations, it's just a matter of we put it on the agenda for next Tuesday, officially approve it, and then it goes to the state for the preliminary. The only other question I have is, did we ever formally approve the police budget? I'm not sure. I don't think so. So we need to get that on Tuesday's agenda as well, just because the chief called and brought that today. And I don't think we're required necessarily to do a formal approval, but I think he'd be more comfortable if we did, and the other cities have already. And did we formally approve the fire budget? Because that's the other- Yes. We did. Yep. Was that what Nate... Or did we approve what Nate presented to us? We didn't. Because- Well, hold on ... what Nate presented to us is a lot. We- What we approved was a little bit different than what he brought here. I thought you meant what he presented to the board. Yeah, Kevin's referring to the fire board-approved budget. Yes. But we- We haven't done it here ... this council has approved the city yet. Let's go in turn. So for the agenda, we'll do police, we'll do fire, and then we'll do the city budget- Yep ... which is Danny and Dan. Are they both in here? Yes. Okay. And we know what they are? Yes. Okay. And that gives us the roof too, doesn't it? Yep. Yeah. So there's a lot of stuff in this budget, and we've got two squad cars. The UPS? The roof. Or is that part of the bonding? No, that's the battery. Yeah. That's part of the bonding. Yeah. And that kind of got scuttled by fire, I think. And those are discussions we just still need to figure out. Mm. So the RMS system's still not there on the police side, the battery backup. But the thought is to also put the truck on the bonding, so that would lift off of- Yeah ... the fire budget if we did that, which would bring that levy down. Do we have any bonding in there? Other than past bonding. Yes, we do. We do? Yeah. For the 2028 project or 2027 project, there's- How much is that? 175,000. That's principal and interest. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Okay. How much are we bonding this year or are we? It would be for next year. For next year, okay. That's what the 175 is for. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And that gets us another 11% of the city's parks and roads, which will get us to a total of roughly 36% total. On this, five years. Good. Yeah. Let's leave it now. Bottom bucket, I think. And just to manage expectations here. So the thought is we continue to put 100 aside each year. So I'm assuming this is what you're referring to- No ... the CIP. No, that's the parks. No, we will not. No. No. There you go. So we anticipate the dock at 100 to 125,000? Yeah. That was the rough estimate. Yeah. So did we decide to do that this year or next year because of the staging that we're going to are we going to pay for it or not pay it? The staging. I think the plan is to pay it with the staging. And so we pay but they stage. Okay. And I think we keep to a minimum of staging there. Like I said, they're not going to be storing anything over winter there on this patch at all. Yeah. It's trailers and trucks. And they shouldn't have anything. It should just be the stuff that they're using. They should be able to park a lot of it on site. Yeah. The excavator and- Yep. And that's all. Most of that should be able to stay out on. Yeah. We'll just have to verify, keep as much stuff on the road up there as you can. Yeah. My understanding too was that we still had funds available from our previous SUIP projects. There was money available to possibly pay this year. You're going to have to let me know about that because the contractor's going to be running out of time really fast. It had just come up in passing when we were having conversations with John during council meetings, so, it doesn't have to be done this year. I don't think it's urgent, but the punchline is, long story short, yes, I think the plan is to pay it. Okay. And this local cost then went up a little over 6%. It was 17%, and we went to 23.2. And that's a hard sell paying all the monthly and everything. All right. And next year, you're talking about- No, later. You're at two and a month. So if we continue forward with the capital project, we have to put... Because if we're doing a project every other year, and we break those costs out, so we put 100,000 away every single year through 2035. That's roughly a 10% tax levy increase just for water, streets, and roads every single year, all things equal. What? I'm sorry, I'm not following that. So you were asking about the years ahead. Yeah. So, the capital plan right now, we should be 100% complete by 2035. We do a project every other year, but what I think the general plan right now is to put $100,000 away every other year. So we'll have 100,000 next year, and then '28, '29, '30, '31, '32, '33. Every time you do that, that by itself is roughly 10%, a 10% tax levy increase. Okay. So it's just baseline, but the reason we're in that position is that there was no money that was ever set aside for capital improvements in the city. And granted, that's a long-term, and we're looking nine years out on this. But what we'll do, if we can get through that one, we will be 100% complete. Our infrastructure should be good for probably the next 50 or so years, and possessions for future councils, so that as these bond payments roll off, that will free up the principal and interest that we're paying on these things, so the future council's going to use it to just roll it right back into the next project in the future. So, we're basically paying today to put future councils in a position where they can manage our infrastructure more effectively. Is that to '19 or was it to '19 right here? I've got to... Does that include that 200,000? So this- Yeah. This includes the 175, so it pays for the principal and interest for the 100. Yeah, but I know Adam's talking about putting $100,000 away. So the 100 is included in that 175. Okay. That's what I thought. Yeah. So it's similar to the trucks we're buying for public works, where what we'll do is next year, we'll put away 100, and then the year after that, we'll also put away 100, and then we will then have 200 to put towards principal and interest on the next round of bonding for the next capital project, which is Westmont Road. Okay. Okay. I'm set. Okay. All right. I think this is just putting a bow on it. I mean, just the last kick of the tires. If anybody else has anything else, I'll call it. Well, the only thing you're going to have to worry about is there's a federal EPA regulation out there right now, starting November 1 of '27, requiring dual verification on water lines. That means you've got to identify it in the basement, and then you're going to have to identify it in the street. Yeah. So that means we'll have to be backing in streets on roads that haven't been done. Nobody knows the exact interpretation of that from the federal EPA yet because they haven't given us guidelines on it, but just so you know going forward that. So what does that mean from a financial perspective? Well, we don't have-- Let's say we get half of our water lines replaced. So that leaves 360 water services that we potentially might have to excavate over the next 10 years. Nobody's got the final verification on that yet. Why don't we jump that hurdle when we get to it? Okay. Please. If that's truly the case, there's cities all over the state that just simply would not have the ability. No. A majority of the cities in the state would not have the ability. And that's a problem they're having with it right now, because there's no money out for the lead and copper. This all started with the Flint, Michigan ordeal and- We can't afford to excavate something like that, because the other thing is, my understanding was that bill, when it originally went through regarding lead and slip, was also covered by the federal government. Part of it was. Federal government's not giving any money up, and the state's not giving any money up. Yeah. No. So nobody knows where that's at, but I just wanted you to be aware of that. Because we had to excavate to do the top of Bay Lane, and we did the crest part of Highland. 'Cause it wasn't identified on any of the maps. We verified, so we didn't have to do samples at the houses to get water softener, water conditioners to make sure there's no lead in their water. So everything we've had has been identified to the federal EPA standards so far, but this new ruling, nobody knows what's going on with yet. Is that houses over a certain age or it's all of them? They want dual verification on the water line. Okay. So that basically means if the water line was put in after July 1st of 1985 to the present, lead was banned. So anything prior to that, and the only homes that really qualify for that are null. Can you say again? It's null. After- Our reporter ... after 1985. But the water main was put in before that, so they don't qualify. So that's a real... Hmm. No, we'll figure that one out because that's- Yeah, that's why I wanted to bring it back because people are screaming about just not having the money to do it. Yeah, and me, there's 856 cities in the state of Minnesota, and a vast majority of them just simply do not have the resources. I just don't. No. And the federal EPA did not give a clear understanding of the rule for that lead and copper until two years. The rule was on the books for two years before we got clarification on it. So they only gave us about a year where it was clarified on what had to be done. So I'll hand you that as a conversation to have with Kelly Morrison, I think, is what we can do. Yeah. And I'm just letting you know that it's looming out there, so I don't want you all to say, "Oh." Do you have the documentation on that? I can get it off the computer, just- Can you send it to me? Yeah. Or send it to all of us and just have it here because I'd like us to have a conversation on that also. Because I deal with rural water quite a bit on this lead and copper stuff, and there were reports on the water between here and Veronica, and everybody still doesn't have everything's up in the air, and nobody knows anything. All right. Well, all right. Does anybody make a motion to adjourn, I think, for everybody else? I move to adjourn. Second. Okay, I'm going to go with you this time. So I've got a motion from Ross, second from Bob. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion passes at 7:4. All right. Thanks, Tom. Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you. My pleasure.