to you. >> All right. Call the meeting to order for the workshop. Roll call, please. >> Council member Nordby is absent. Council member Woods >> here. >> Council member McKenzie >> here. >> Council member Schwear is absent. Mayor Mongi >> here. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda, please? >> So moved. >> So moved. Council member McKenzie. >> Second. >> Second. Council member Woods. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Thank you very much. Off to the Dan show. >> One topic on >> Oh, I'm sorry. We're going to go to this first. >> We got the 2027 levy general fund budgets tonight. Dan put together a really nice report for you and uh turned it over to Dan Winnick, our finance director. >> Well, thank you, mayor, council members. uh and city manager. Uh this is the city manager's uh budget. Um based upon the direction that uh we received from city council um and the city manager uh voiced that to all of our department heads. A lot of work has gone into this already. Um all of the department heads have submitted their budgets. Um they have all had meetings with Brian and myself. Um uh I think I've mentioned this to a couple of people. I think the mayor's won um and and also mentioned this to department heads. Um Brian's uh education on the budget has tr grown tremendously. He was asking questions and sees the whole entire picture. Um so clearly um was actually uh put a big smile on my face. Um he has done one heck of a great job of his understanding of all the ins and outs um regarding the budget. Tonight we're going to have the budget kickoff and we're going to go over budgets that have a levy impact. Uh so what that means is when we get together in August 18th, we will discuss the enterprise funds, internal service funds, and then the capital improvement um plan um that we have the 10-year plan. Tonight we're going to be covering um the uh levy budgets which include the biggest one is the general fund and then we have three funds that are impacted uh with levy because of our infrastructural um components that we have um made a big goal um in levying for being the parks um asset preservation which are our facilities and street maintenance which are our roads. Um and then in addition to that, we have the HR and the EDA um budgets. All of those together are all the levy budgets. Uh so tonight we're going to go over a little bit of uh fiscal information. Uh we're going to review the levy budgets. Uh look at what the what we're proposing, what uh city manager is proposing for the 2027 proposed levy, proposed general fund budget, the HA and the EDA budgets, and then those three infrastructural budgets. and then open it up for discussion, any questions, answers, what other additional information you may need um to make for you to make a a decision. Remember, um in September, we need to certify our maximum levy. Um means we can come down um before we do a final approval of the levy in December. Um but we can't go up. Um so, uh with that kind of walk through and give a little bit of fiscal information. It was last year's uh budget. Uh we talked about the state of Minnesota and and where they were at and some of the concerns that were were out there at that point in time. If you remember, they were looking at for the ban bianium of you know the 2829 that there were going to be you know like $6 billion deficit. Things have changed drastically. Um and you can see right now the you know the the forecast is showing a a surplus um that uh you know as of March 2nd um of this year the state's financial outlook improved 1.3 billion since November um but officials warn of a structural deficit in future budget cycles but they're looking right now as a surplus of about 3.7 um million um dollars. Again, so much is dependent on how the election for governor and so forth um the in the legislation in the Senate um for Minnesota and how the impact of that um um takes place. But if you remember last year with those big um deficits um we kind of looked at one of the you know I always hate this this term lowhanging fruit for um a state to be able to reduce um and that's local government aid and we have a dependency on local government aid. You know we get about $1.6 million in local government aid. You know you turn that you know $1.6 $6 million into a levy increase which would have to be go go go out to the taxpayers and all of a sudden, you know, you're looking at about a 20% levy increase to be able to cover that type of deficit if they were to wipe everything out. Um but uh um right now nothing has has changed with that um in this past legislation. Um so we're still at that$ 1.6 u million dollar mark. um when we look at our own I shared a little of this information um after the uh presentation with the financial statements um and I and I purposefully have done this um I'm taking looking at um both uh of these levy funds um both looking at it from fund balance and cash and investments and I like the cash and investments more than I like the fund balance because the fund balance um has some other journal journal entries and some other components that are put into it that you know um you know they'll show assets, they'll show other components to it that really kind of impact um the the position of where they're at. Cash is cash. You got the cash on hand. And I purposefully um took it from the beginning of 2023 to the end of the last um audit period of 2025. The reason being is that we have a city council um board here that three of the members have been here starting in 2023. Um they deserve a lot of credit with the addition of the two new council members that we have um now because I'm going to show you some of the accomplishments and I and I believe they're big accomplishments for the city that that have transpired in that time since 2023. You can see where if we look at the our cash um our general fund has increased 50% in that time period. Um HRA is over 100% EDA 56%. Asset preservation uh 3% uh the park capital 55% and street maintenance fund 94%. We have really done what the city council has asked and that is to levy to try to move us into a cash basis where we can afford to do more street work. Um if you remember it's this city council that made the decision to add in that um alternate year of non-bonding for street work to put in a a payment preservation program where we're spending over $2 million a year to be able to take care of our streets. Um those are huge huge huge things. I just took some just capital highlights and these numbers come from what we actually book into our uh fixed asset system. Um and so from 23 to 25 you can see that the there was a housy park um improvement polar park um playground equipment. You have the 24 the 25 payment preservation. You've got the 2025 uh street and utility project which was a bonded project. Um we got a a well roof um electric infrastructure. Um look at all of the equipment that we have put in. Um you know we had a lot of aging um uh uh vehicles. Um we've really brought our stock up to where it needs to be all due to the city council's support. Um some of the highlights that I really like to to look at um when we look back over the past three years is that in addition to these expenditures in the four years um you know um is that we have built a very comprehensive capital improvement plan um that really was non-existence before the city council um in the past three years. And I do have a a chart that later on I'll show you that we really have aggressively began to fund that infrastructure. Again, paying things in cash versus debt, debt, debt. Um, remember I've said this a few times. You go out and bond uh for $1 million over 20 years at a 5% interest, you're going to be making a principal payment of $80,000 a year. Um, that's 1.6 six million that you're going to pay over those 20 years versus the 1 million that you got. So, as we move ourselves into a better financial position, and I think you can see and you've saw when the year- end financial audit report came in that we have really seriously improved our our position, our fund balance position, our cash position. Um, you know, we moved our our fund balance policy, especially in the general fund, from 35% to 50%. At the end of last year, we were at 67%. Um, that's significant. Um, and what did it translate to? It translated to us getting a better bond rating, moving from a double A to a double A plus. And you've heard me say for a small city this size carrying the amount of debt that we're carrying, that is really an an astronomical accomplishment um that we did. Why? Because we have done such a great job of planning that you've directed the city manager, city managers directed me to take that lead into making sure that we're doing a better job of planning. And our department heads have done a fabulous job. They're all on board and we've just continued to just ride that movement and and trying to make it. I I know, you know, how we got there. Um to coin a phrase that was was was said by our our mayor, um show me the the good, the bad, and the ugly. And that's what we did. Um we showed some of those components that maybe just from a pure financial sense don't, you know, didn't make sense. Um, you know, not trying to get into things that may be controversial. There's always the the components that would be nice to have. Um, but, you know, it's kind of one of the bigger ones that just occurred this year again underneath this city council um, and the hard work that our city manager um, put into trying to to make it accomplished of getting um, those that grant shifted from one purpose to our water tower. Um, those are huge. They're controversial absolutely but they help us in a different financial u percentage and when we get into the enterprise funds on August 18th the preliminary look and and from last year I just kind of made the adjustment we were talking about that we were going to end up having some significant increases in rates across the board in our utilities with the exception of the electric um rate. um in the water we were looking at probably about six and a quarter percent um rate increases for the next 10 years. We're now because of that move we're looking at more of a 2 and a half%. Um so there's some significant changes that have occurred underneath the leadership of the city council. Um this is for three of the members here um uh council member Schweir and uh Mayor Mongi and uh council member Nordby this is your fourth budget year. uh for Council Member Woods and Council Member M Mc Mackenzie. This is your second budget year to it. Um you're hearing me kind of reminisce. As I get older, I reminisce a little bit more and bring some of these these points um up. Earlier this year, uh or earlier this month, I I I have made it five years in this wonderful city of North St. Paul and being your finance director. Um I love this place. um your leadership um has been fantastic and we listen to everything that you're saying to us in trying to make the city a better place from a financial position and from a budgetary position. So, there's a lot of great things that have been accomplished in the past three years as we're moving into the fourth year underneath the city council. Uh city of North St. Paul, you know, we're seeing for the first time all the way since uh 2018 that the uh market values are are actually decreasing. We're seeing that the overall estimated market values are decreasing. We're also seeing the median um value home um decreasing. It's decreasing from 310,000 to 307. There's a lot of speculation out there in the market that we're going to see housing prices drop even further um in the in the years ahead um as kind of a balance with the interest rates that are out there to make you know home ownership affordable. That's kind of how the whole economy kind of works. Um we wrote some very um high increases as far as market value is concerned since the co times. Um we're now seeing though that it started to flatten out. Now it's starting to go down in the opposite way. What that means is that as those decrease and we levy higher amounts, that puts that much more of a burden um on the taxpayers. And again, because our pool is over 90% residential and only less than 10% on commercial, it puts more of a burden on our um on the homeowners um that are in this uh city. the levy budgets that we're going to be I mentioned earlier that we're going to be looking at are the general fund. Um and that's uh that houses and and and the budgets that are underneath that are really basically for all of our basic services. Um then we have the housing redevelopment authority h the economic development authority EDA the park fund the street maintenance fund and the asset preservation fund. Well, we listened to you. Um, uh, the target that we were going at from from, uh, the direction from city council and the city manager was to bring in a 6% levy increase. The budget that we're going to show you tonight achieves that. Um, and it continues to fund the infrastructure, meaning the streets, the facilities, and the parks per our plan. the proposed levy. Um we're seeing uh when we look at it, the general fund is levy is going up about $176,000. The street maintenance 173, park 76, asset preservation 142. Debt's going down a little bit from from last year about 11,000. And again, the the debt is set um each and every every single time when we go out and issue bonds. Um we get what our debt payments are are going to be. And this just shows what our what we need to levy and and we need to levy 105% of what our payments are going to be. Um, so we collect the money in 2027 to make those payments in 2028 because the first the bond and principal payment in any in the beginning of the year is February 1st and then there's an interestonly payment that's um due on August 1st. Um, and you can see um the shifts the differences from the 2026 final levy to the 2027 of where we're at today. And overall um it accomplishes the 6%. What you are going to see here is to be able to accomplish this, we would have to reduce the levy um in the EDA by $40,000. Um so it would go the EDA levy would go from a almost 201,000 to 161,000. the city manager and myself believe that that's very possible and feasible because I'm going to bring you back over to here and if we look at what how the EDA has has done you've seen the fund balance since 2023 to the end of 2025 has increased almost $250,000 or 54%. Cash on the EDA has increased $234,000 or 56%. um the the levy at $160,000 for EDA will cover what we know of as definite expenses and then some, you know, some extra. It has been growing every year. Um and so I think we both believe that there was enough um that we could cut that back a little bit and still be able to provide all of the services that the Economic Development Authority needs. Um but again those are questions that you certainly can can ask or direction that you want to give to us. But that's how we achieve the 6%. Um if we look at the levy changes for 2027 personnel costs again are the biggest driving factor in the general fund almost $245,000 increase or a 2.84% levy increase. we in the 2027 this represents the third year of a three-year contract. So we know that the cost of living increase is a 3%. Um so if you look at all of of that plus changes we make estimates for health insurancees um their step increases and so forth. Um coming in at 2.84 is is very good. There are no new um FTEEs um positions being proposed um in this budget. Uh if we look at the supplies of contractual services and capital, there's a slight decrease. It's only amounts to about 48,000 um or you know about a half a percent levy decrease. Um transfers in, you know, is a little slight increase of about 10,000. Um and all other revenue um you know we have an increase of about 30,000. Uh the general fund increase overall is about a 2% and then we have our infrastructural components streets parks asset preservation and then debts a little bit of a decrease. Those amount to collectively 4.4% 4% and then if we took that decrease of the 40,000 from the EDA we come up to a total of a 6% levy increase. [clears throat] I'm going to stop right there. That's a lot of information that I've just kind of gone through. Is there any questions um with kind of our methodology of how we're going about um achieving a 6%. I guess I'd like to challenge the $40,000 cut from the EDA and what the EDA has, what their goals are and what their plans are. I understand that there is a um there's capital money there, but to take money away from the EDA that's supposed to help develop our city, whether it's beautifification, um bringing new businesses in. $40,000 seems like a lot of money to um come from a budget that could be utilized. So, I would want to know what the goals are of the EDA. Um, and was it discussed to cut besides between you and Brian, was it discussed amongst EDA to cut those dollars? >> That definitely still has to occur um to talk to the EDA. Um, it's it it's not a cut in in the budget, per se. They're and we'll get to look at their budget. their budget is still being set at basically what they've had year after year. Um, but their fund balance has been growing, growing, and growing. Um, so really what that gives, you know, an indication is that they really haven't needed to levy that many dollars. Um, it isn't a a cutting down. >> And I apologize. I shouldn't have said cut. Um, obviously we're not cutting. We're just >> reducing. We're reducing the amount that we would give them. um this year, but in 2027, excuse me. Um but I would want I would challenge and I would want to know what the what EDA has planned because that $40,000 that we're reducing essentially is they're not going to be able to utilize that obviously for next year. So if we have monies sitting there for EDA, what is EDA's goal with those dollars? I know that they've um done some beautifification uh between windows um roofing downtown, but what else are we going to do with that? >> No, very good question. >> Yeah, so the facade improvement program that you're referring to is the funding that we've made available for the business whether or not it's >> um it was focused more towards the facade like the windows and the doors and you know what kind of improvements they can make. um even for you know saving energy and costs that way. We did the uh parking lot for the downtown as well and we have talked about ways of even improving the facade improvement program with uh well which we did a couple of ways. Um initially you had to spend at least $20,000 first. We reimbured the uh $10,000 that was reduced. It was cut in half so we could have more involvement of it and of people doing the improvements. We have floated some ideas. We wanted to see how that took off first to see if we were going to have more people involved in the program, but potentially moving it on even further than the facade part. I mean, it's not it's one of the things we talked about. It hasn't been implemented, but rooftop units or, you know, AC or boilers or heaters or things like that that we can make the improvements because a lot of these are really small um local businesses that uh can't afford some of those bigger high dollar items. >> Completely. And I will say the antique shop, the the popular one I like to think. Um that's beautiful. The windows and that changes that brought a lot of life to that building. Um so I do I think that's great. I I would like to challenge though what what are we going to do to draw in our resident new residents um draw in new businesses. Um that's what some of these dollars are for as well. >> Indeed. Um yeah, and there's other ideas that are out there. We've talked with different firms uh >> about economic development and ways to improve. Um we did uh >> I mean I we don't have to talk about what we did. It's more or less I we're cutting $40,000 from the EDA to bring this levy down. That's all. >> And I guess I would reemphasize that uh you know their current funding at the end of 20 >> decreasing not cutting. Let me >> right the uh that their fund was at over $700,000. So it wasn't uh like a major blow to it to us to reach the goal that council had set to try to get to that 6%. So it seemed like a lowhanging fruit if you will to to get us there that the fund itself wasn't hurting. So >> Sure. And I rebut that to if we're going to decrease that amount, what if we need that amount moving forward in the next couple years and we don't have those dollars? It was There have been things that have happened with past councils where we wouldn't have a levy and then we saw damage to what now is catch up to that. So it's one of those situations that we proceed with caution. >> Yeah. And is a onetime thing is not meant to be done year after year. We'll reanalyze the fund again next year and then see what the best path forward is. You know, I think you make a very good point and and again, this has not gone in front of the EDA at this point in time and so they they may have objections to it too. I am going to just jump way ahead here. Um, just because you have brought up that e, you know, excellent question to it. Um, so you know if if you look at the EDA budget and I'm being very aggressive to it and you can you can see so the personnel services they are what they're they are. Um we have reduced um per our agreement we've had with the EDA reducing the percentage of the economic development dire or the community development director's time um from where it was at. I think it's now down to what we agreed to, I think 20%. Um, and but you can see we've got $105,000 in the budget for contractual services. And we look at the actuals from 23, 24, and 25, you're going to see 9,2600, and 2600 is all that's been spent out of there where we're seeing that the net position, you know, when you know increase 72, 81,000, 94,000. Um so just based upon that um again and it and it does not um it doesn't address I think the more principle piece that council member mirror that you were bringing up is what is that plan and if you have that plan and it has a higher dollar amount to it and you're doing this reduction of 40,000 you're working against yourself. Um, and so that's really where that that discussion with the EDA, you know, um, really does take place because you're absolutely right. If if the plan's calling for in the future years much higher, then you don't yourself now at this point in time. Um, so, uh, point very well taken. Um, but we were looking at it from the standpoint of what we know as this point in time, it seemed to be okay to do. Um and just like our city manager said to be re-evaluated on an annual basis. Um but again this does need to go in front of the EDA to make sure that they um you know are in agreement with that. And then um showing what our debt levy um will be for 27 versus what it is for 26. And you can see there's slight changes um that have occurred with that. Um and again those are based upon um the bond schedules. Um some go up a little bit and some go down. Um they try to make um the payments pretty equal. Um you know they usually try to make them within you know a 5,2 or a even dollar amount. So then when you multiply it by the one and a half% you know it kind of comes up but you unless you're issuing another bonded debt or one falls off it doesn't usually change a great deal. Um, so you can see that there's a slight savings, not not a lot into it. And this is kind of the graph that I was referring to earlier. Um, that is really quite impressive. Um, taking from the standpoint that we were given the direction that um, you know, build a comprehensive capital plan, identify what needs are in the st in the city, and we saw those needs that are really the streets, the parks, and the facilities. and how do we fund those as we move forward and making sure that we're you know you know we're doing an adequate job of that. And um what you see in the blue is what what has been levied um you know so basically um prior to the payable year of 2023 there was no money going into the streets parks and facilities from a pure levy standpoint. Um that has changed over time. Um, and that's based upon those 10-year financial plans, based upon the capital improvement plan and trying to fund those as we're moving forward. Um, this pay uh this 27 budget um you know shows that it's now moved up to uh you know a total of $1.8 million um that's going to you know streets, parks and and facilities um just per our our capital improvement plan that we have had. Um so if you look at from you know the there's three members again that began in 2023. So you look at that pay 24 um number and you look at that the for the basic services that the city provides in other words administration finance police fire. Um you had a levy of a little over $7 million. You're up to 7.3. So really over a four-year period of only going up $300,000 in your levy um for providing those services is quite quite good. Um you know I you know think if we look at that that's probably you know less than a percent increase on an annual basis. Um so pretty impressive. What the burden has been to the taxpayers in the levy has been what we've been putting into the streets, parks and and uh facilities. And you've heard me say it over and over again that that's what's so important when we look at that capital improvement plan because that's really what's driving um the levy at this point in time. Um and to make sure that we're in a good position as we move forward. Um and we have our road ratings have have increased. Um we're starting to take care of um the parks. We still have a lot of work there to do. Um we've had older facilities that are 20 plus years. Money wasn't allocated, you know, to that. We're trying to take care of all of those. So, you know, I give a lot of thanks to city council for giving us that direction and moving us forward in in that way. And I think this this graph really does illustrate that there's been a lot of work that's been been done um in the the you know, past, you know, since three of these members here on the city council um have taken over. When we look at the general fund budget, you know, we kind of look at again the revenue categories. And again, this is really it does it emphasizes it hasn't changed much from year after year, but it really keeps saying that look at our dependency on property taxes is 58%. Intergovernmental revenue 21%. So, you know, we're looking at almost 80% of our revenue is coming from, you know, property taxes and in state um funding. um that's a heavy reliance. Um you know, we don't have that other funding source that's that's out there in our general fund. And if you look at our expenditures, you know, if we look at it by category, it's our personnel costs in the general fund that are really driving it. That's 70% of the of the budget is um personnel costs. And then here's the numbers um that kind of back it up um that you can you can see if you want to look at the numbers and see how they've changed from one year to the next. And then if we look at expenditures by department, you know, you're going to see that our police um is at a little over 47. Our fire and code enforcement at 16 16%. So right there we're over 63% um of our general fund is um in public safety and that's not out of line. What you're going to see with with other jurisdictions um that provide um both police and and fire services and then you know followed by the next one after that is our street maintenance which is almost 12%. Um but again you're seeing on the revenue side heavy dependence on property taxes intergovernmental revenue and you're seeing on the expenditure side where you know two things one our biggest cost in the general fund is personnel by a long shot and then we're really have that public safety and then the street maintenance again all in line with with what you would see in in other cities and municipalities. Um, and here's the numbers that kind of um back that component up. HA and EDA. Um, again um HRA um if we go back and I'll pull back um all the way to the front part and again um this is kind of you know looking at it in the same way as we did with the the EDA. Um would we increase the EDA or the HAS's levy from 11,000? Um you know it would be a question do we even need that 11,000? Um is is legitimate because you can see that the fund balance has increased from 23 to end of 2025 a little over 200,000. You see cash has has increased $584,000. Um so again um you look at this and and what are you doing in your HRA um you know the student build um housing is uh the biggest component of that um which isn't requiring a a great deal of money um and um at least in the past couple of sales we've actually made a profit um so it hasn't been drawing it down um So there's really not a need to increase that 11,000. It does go to maybe you can reduce that, you know, to to zero if you if you so desire. Um and so we looked at the EDA in the same manner. Um and that's where we, you know, just, you know, made the decision of again, it's not a final decision because city council has that that final decision. Um but that's where we had proposed to to reduce it by $40,000. Um and then you can see um you know um the budgets um that are prepared for both the the um HA and the EDA. Um and then we have the infrastructural budgets um here for park funding. The capital has not been infused into these at this point in time um because we um department heads um had just gotten together uh last week. Uh we still need a little bit of information from our uh engineer um regarding some street projects so we can finalize the the CIP for proposed CIP that we'll end up bringing back to you and on August 18th and then they'll they'll be pulled into um all of these um budgets um and then you'll be able to see uh what the impact is and then with the 10-year uh financial plans and it really it doesn't [clears throat] impact the general fund but it will impact um the park fund, the street maintenance fund, and the asset preservation fund. Um because that's they're they're heavily driven by the capital improvement plan, but I also have provided here, you know, at this point in time, you know, what at the end of last year was the fund balance in the park fund. Um 830,000, what's the projection right now based upon this information? Um and then the street maintenance um fund um you know was over 4 million um with the projection here it would remain about that about 4.1 asset preservation um would uh based upon um the capital components that we had at the time still it was being discussed and worked with um the department heads um which will be again shown later um that one decreases uh from about 1.7 7 to about 700 uh to about $670,000. So, those are all of the budgets that impact the levy and we really want to open it up and give all of your thoughts, concerns. Um, we've already had a very good dialogue on the EDA very good points. Um, so we would like to continue that. If you have questions, what addition would you like to see regarding these levy budgets? Um again on August 18th you'll see the remaining budgets that we put together. Enterprise Internal Service Fund. We have just a couple of special funds. Um and then um the CIP [clears throat] questions, thoughts, are we close? Um >> this is a great framework I think to begin with. So I know that's where was started with was just to throw ideas out. So I do like um the framework to start with on this. So, a lot of see a lot of effort and a lot of time has been put into this. So, I appreciate it. >> I'll agree with mayor on that. I think you guys do with the fact that we discussed this as a council. What was it a couple years ago that we just said I don't think we need to have a billion meetings regarding the budget and we can put Brian and Dan and the um department heads together and we can start on that piece instead of starting early in June. I appreciate that. So, yeah, I'll ditto what the mayor said on that. Um, as we're talking about the HA, I um I would like to see that those dollars stay there um and to keep those dollars and not reduce it for 2027. Uh there's opportunities that may arise in the city that um for example, you know, purchasing of a house that we could or land that we could essentially build a new student build on. You don't know when those opportunities are going to come up. And when they do come up and we don't have the dollars or the funding there to purchase it, um we may be missing out on something that could be pretty hot for us. So, I I would like to say either we continue to keep that amount the same um or something tight to it. If there is a little decrease or a little increase, I am in favor of both of those, but we still should continue to build on that HR most especially if we're using these funds for some staffing. Um I I'm hardressed to reduce dollars if we're using these funds as well for and I know it's not a ton of money out of these funds obviously but if we are I would like to see that those remain intact because uh the last thing we want to do is reduce staffing that we're already tight on here in the city. In the last two years, it's been a little bit of a skew for the HA because we've had existing property. We haven't had to go purchase it. So, I think that's part of our number two is we didn't have the initial purchase of something. We're able to reuse some of the land we had. So, I think that's given us a little bit more cushion than we normally would have had to. >> Yep. Nope. Good points. Very good points. Yeah. >> I think we should keep the uh budget to say the same as for the H. Also, we don't want to miss out on any possible properties that we can obtain that student build housing is very important to the city. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> [clears throat] >> Dan, what does that 40,000 represent in a percentage? I if you were to put that $40,000 that you were going to reduce ED by back into the levy budget is a levy percentage. >> Yeah, about a half a percent. So you would you would go to from six to six and a half and again if the direction I I mean council member Schwer makes some excellent points. So um and and again you know remember this is this is the proposed um this is to get the dialogue going. Um so if you say and we hear uh clearly that you know we really don't want to reduce it to $40,000 um that our options then are we either raise a levy a half a percent or you direct the city manager and staff to come back and try to find ways to get that other $40,000 to get back to that 6%. Um, you know, that's that's that's how we do it. You know, we we certainly we we certainly want to be able to be, you know, trying to get to where the city council wants. Um and so that means we go back to the drawing board and and try to come up with uh either increasing in revenue um reductions in expenditures whatever to try to get ourselves back to that um you know that 6%. And >> well, and I should and I think it's important for the community to understand that as we all got together in the beginning of the year, it was a common agreement that we wanted to stay that as a council to stay at the 6% roughly around the 6%. So, um this is the first round. This was where um the two two of you and the department heads uh fit right now. Um and clearly this is just the beginning. >> Absolutely. Yeah. So, I'm I will throw it out there. I I think you are providing staff with direction to not use the 40,000 from the EDA and try to come up with some other options to get us back to that 6%. I would like to say that I would like to see not all of the money come from EDA and that we're decreasing it from other areas as well. >> Okay, that's a very fair way of doing it. Yeah, I like that. All right. Yep. We'll we'll uh certainly look at it that way. And I would say you two are best suited for being able to make that decision because one of the limitations that we have is we don't see what the proposals are from all these departments and everything to know exactly what the plan is with this budget. Um for us to say we're going to you know cut $40,000 from EDA or from parks or something like that. We don't know what the impact to their plans are necessarily. We know monetarily, but we don't know in terms of what the plan is. So, it's hard for us to just arbitrarily say, "Oh, yeah, take it from there or take it from there." >> No. And and and that's where what and and again, Council Member Schwar said um perfectly she's not suggesting that there's a a direct place that we're taken. That's she's leaving that up to staff that's in a better position to be able to do that. What's being said is that let's not take all 40,000 from the EDA. Um let's have this kind of a shared piece to it. So in other words, we may be able to increase some revenues um in our general fund. Let's sake a conversation$10,000. So that that reduced maybe we can reduce expenditures $10,000. Um so now we've got 20 uh maybe we can get 10 somewhere else and there's 10 that comes from the EDA and it's kind of a shared piece to it. But we would be making that recommendation to you for your final acceptance onto it. But I think it's pretty clear that um we did um earlier in the year and that's you know that's the direction that we walked into preparation for this budget with our department heads is that we were going to get this to 6%. >> Um and so this was just like you says it's the beginning. Um, and that's where we thought, oh, you know, if we look at our fund balance and the history and how things have gone, we're not seeing, we're seeing in the past three years, it keeps increasing, keeps increasing all by more than $40,000. Hey, we could probably take that $40,000 from there. But on the flip side to it, there's an excellent point that's made and it was discussed on the HA. what happens if that opportunity comes up and you've you shortch changed yourself um in the years past and you know and I think that's it's a very good comment because I'm going to tie it into that's what started us all on in in and showing the piece to it that isn't that really at the end of the day what started this whole entire thing of of moving ourselves to being able to pay some cash and start taking care of things you know show the good the bad and the ugly building that comprehensive plan. So your point is what we've already done. So let's not let's not go the opposite way with it and hurt ourselves in the EDA. Um so absolutely again I'm getting older the I pull the things together and and so to me that absolutely makes sense. Um but there's not take it from here, take it from there. That'll be us to propose to you >> on the EDA. us when we got together as a group and discuss what um what that looked like the you know the interest rates doubled in how many months and we were had interest on the one across the way here on on Margaret and there was three of them and then boom everybody disappeared at once. So as far as the EDA we're looking at doing more along the lines put a little bit of a holding pattern for new and just take care of the things we are. So there's going to be stuff coming. It's just what's the cycle going out there right now when it comes to building and commercial space and things like that. So, >> Dan Dan, if you could help me, I just want to make sure I understand something. When the city puts forth their levy budget, the number you give the state is actually a dollar figure, not a percentage. Correct. >> Correct. last year with the percentage we gave, how how much of that percentage actually went to the resident versus and how much because of fiscal disparity did we save compared to where we >> said we needed to be. >> Mhm. No, very good. So, it's not the percentage, it's it's the levy amount. So, if if we're, you know, if we add, you know, these all up, we're probably about a $9.1 million levy. Um, that's what we certify. >> Um, I think we're at about a 1.3 million that we get from fiscal disparities. So, for the taxpayers, you take that n that 9.1, subtract the 1.3, so you're looking at, you know, 7.8 million is what they're actually paying for. The 1.3 comes from the fiscal disparities pool that includes, you know, is really generated off of commercial property growth since 1971 um for the metro area. So, yes, absolutely. They're not they're not paying the full amount, not city of North St. Paul taxpayers. So >> I'm going to have to email you. My thoughts are >> Yeah. So So one of the thing So one of the things that we have to be conscientious of is that you know we can't go through a huge because in the fiscal disparities pool we're a winner. Um we get money. Um we get you know you contribute part and then you get money back. we we end up being positive um about the $1.3 million um which has grown um and part of it grows is it's if the commercial if commercial values are going up higher around the region versus what our pool is and our pool is very small um that you you can increase from that plus it's multiplied by your prior year's tax rate um because it's a net tax capacity that gets shifted over that gets multiplied by your tax rate. So you you don't want to drastically drop your tax rate down. So you want to and that's one of the pieces that we show every single year. We're just a little bit too early for that. Usually in August we start to get information from other cities of where their proposed levies are. Um but we want to be somewhere in the close to where they are. We don't want to be um way low um because then then it ends up doesn't hurt us that year but it hurts us in a subsequent year um with the fiscal disparities that can turn. So then it puts more of a burden even though we would end up having not a high levy increase. it could have a higher property tax impact on our residents because we didn't get as much fiscal disparities dollars which then translates that more of the burden of the levy goes to them. >> And that happened one year for us was it that we that we got that because it was a 0% >> Yes. Yeah. >> and negative a million something the following year. >> Right. And if I remember from last year, we when we ended up with the levy, we were going to be kind of just either floating right above or just below the next three years out. >> Yeah, we we we've been, you know, with the exception of one year, um we've been right in the middle range, um with, you know, in comparison to cities that are in Ramsey County. Um, so I mean I think we've been very conscientious about that. We haven't gone, you know, wild. Um, and that's what's that's what to me is quite impressive. Again, in this graph illustrates it. You've done that. Um, yet you've put of your levy increases, 1.8 has gone to help your needed infrastructural needs in cash. and for your basic services, you've only increased $250,000. Um, that that's that's remarkable. Um, to me, what it means is that your department heads are continuously tightening up their belts um and their budgets. >> That is impressive when we're doing that. We're still getting the new equipment, everything we need, too. So, that is a win-win on both ends of it. Other questions, thoughts, additional information that you would like to see come forth. >> No, I think you've explained everything very well as always, Dan. Thank you. Okay. So, we will come up with some options um that we will present on the 18th in addition to the internal service fund, the enterprise funds and the CIP. Um and again, any questions that you have in the interim time, um if you want to reach out to the city manager so we can be prepared on the 18th to be able to answer them, um uh please don't hesitate. >> Okay. But again, uh it has been and it continues to be a pleasure to serve you. um uh you know, love being here in the city and as your finance director and I give you so much kudos for putting us in a very good financial position um as we move into the future. Um and um you know, hopefully this 6% um that you know it's in line with with uh what you know, city council's direction was. Um so we'll do our darnest to bring it in there without having it all come out of the EDA. Yep. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Anything else from anybody? Are you good? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Greatly appreciate you and the staff and all the hard work. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Dan. >> Thank you. >> All right, that's it. So, we got uh it's 6:08. So, we got till 6:30. Can I ask for adjournment, please? >> So, moved. >> So, moved. Council member Woods. >> Second. >> Second. Council member Kinsey. All those in favor say I. I. See everybody at 6:30.