I think this is a great step in the right direction. Um, you know, I'm sure there's going to be road or speed bumps along the way that we that we notice over the next year, but then we work those out and we we make changes next year. I think um it's totally a reasonable amount um for across for the baseball fields, for the pickle ball courts, these high use items um that are kind of above and beyond what the taxpayers are paying for with their taxpayer money. You know, it's these are organizations, these are clubs, they're looking to use it at a higher use thankind of the typical individual. So, I think it's very fair um that we do have a little bit of a fee and I think they'll I think it is a win-win. you know, they're looking to have assurance that they're going to have a place to place. So, this allows assurance for them as well with these reservations.

I thank you. And I I would agree again with with council member Hearn said and especially with our the amount of maintenance costs that we have and the fact that there is not a direct correlation between it being used byonly residents who are paying taxes versus not. And this is This is not 1960 anymore where it's very affordable to have facilities that are used at a moderate rate. Our facilities are used at a very high amount and we do have a need to make sure that uh we're aligning the needs based upon various revenue sources.

As a stakeholder with the city of Lake Emmo, I am asking for the city council to provide documentation for how this 1.4 million proposed 2026 tax increase is to be allocated. I guess we've just seen that tonight. The 2025 tax increase was for 1.2million. This is a $2.6 6 million revenue increase over the 2-year period. On top of this revenue stream, Lake Elmo is billing each resident an additional monthly fee of $5.75 through the Excel Energy bill betweenthe gas and the electric services. I believe this fee first began in June ofthis year. There has been no transparency orcommunication as to what this fee was for.

Um, median value homes. Um, mine on my current proposed 2026 taxes is not the 581,000 that you mentioned. It's less than that. Uh, but my taxes according to this statement are going up 16 and a4%. Not the 14%.So if my median value home is less than what you say the tax of 14 is based on, why is mine going up 16 and a quarter? I don't know.Um, together with what uh this woman shared,uh, I think the franchise fees are ridiculous. I don't like them. It's not transparent.

I am not in a place where I feel comfortable saying here's something to eliminate. I I do feel reasonably confident that actually I feel fully confident that the items in this budget align with the expectations the public has for the services that the city should be providing. I have not received a single comment, email, phone call or text saying this service should be cut inorder to re change the levy. Not a one.

I still feel very strongly that 14% is too high uh of an increase. Again, I'll go back to that August workshop. I think I I went through line by line on the general fund um expenses and you know I I challenged items there and got push back on that which is fine, right? That's the the staff knows best what's what's needed for thosesituations. I'm I'm going to every single year push back on that a littlebit because I do totally agree and again I think I've made this pretty apparentthroughout the the last several months that I do get a little frustrated that alot of the conversation and this was mentioned in the open the public hearingthat the conversation is always how do we increase revenue aka taxes with verylittle talk about what can we do to decrease these um or decrease the rateof increase.

I do have concerns because my only concern with that mindset is that causes what we're trying to raise in those fundlevies. It causes us to increase that amountbecause we're trying to make projections based off of those. So, I think we haveto be really cautious of saying, well, you know, this isn't a for sure thing,but it is what we're we're raising taxes based off of.

I think it might be worthwhile keeping priority four and five items outof the CIP altogether. Um, at least at priority five. Um, or at a bare minimumseeing what the price looks like without priority five in there. Um, I think byincluding priority four and five, um, it's it's kind of like the wish list ishow I see it. And I don't even think we should be doing that. I thinkWe we somehow need to be aware of those things. That might be a possibility ofsomething we need, but I hate putting them in the CIP because then again,we're we're raising taxes today based off of a wish list is how I see that.

when we're looking at the fees and adopting new fees and even the fees we have, are they based in any costanalysis that says here's what it cost us to actually administer this fee? ... So in a cost analy public works we pay him for his time or her for pay for time. They're in a vehicle that drives it out there that uses gas. And you know of off you know generally you when you look at the fees you try and base them on what is your cost to provide the service so that you're you're collecting what it costs you but you're notovercharging either.