All right. >> It's uh 6:31 actually. So, I'm going to call the city of Lake Elmo council workshop for August 12th to order. Uh first on our agenda is uh the Washington County Sheriff proposed 2027 budget. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um as you know, we do partner with Washington County Sheriff's Office to provide our our law enforcement arm for the our community. And so tonight we do have Sheriff Star [clears throat] here who's going to go through the proposed um 2027 budget for the sheriff's. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, city council members, team. Thank you all for uh being here with us. I am Sheriff Dan Star. Uh and I've been with Washington County since uh July 12th, 1993. So coming up on uh 33 and uh almost 34 years. Uh it's been my privilege and honor to have served uh for the past 10 years as uh your sheriff. Uh it's been uh uh it's certainly been humbling uh over these past 10 years. Uh we have a great [clears throat] team here in Lake Elmo. Um and sitting in the the back row, I'd be remiss not to uh point out uh some of my leadership team. I have Chief Deputy Doug Anshoots. Uh Sheriff or Sheriff, I promoted him. Uh Chief Deputy Anchoots has uh been with us for 30 years. Uh started in 1996, came out all the way through the ranks. Uh started as a chief deputy about six years ago. Um Commander Sarah Halverson. Sarah is our patrol commander. She oversees the whole patrol division. So when we talk about police contracts and we talk about townships and all of the policing services that uh we do, uh Commander Halverson oversees that. She has been uh with us uh for quite a while, 26 years, Sarah. Uh and so she uh there's a between the two of them, there's a lot of lot of knowledge there, that's for sure. And then as you know, Sergeant Ty Jacobson uh who is uh appointed [snorts] here as the uh benefacto I guess chief of police of Lake Elmo. Everything that you need should go through him. And uh [clears throat] Tai has been uh with us for quite a while as well. And uh Ty Tai is amazing. >> [clears throat] >> um whether it uh when he started uh and came through he was on SWAT K9 K9 [clears throat] trainer uh we promoted him I believe what 10 years ago uh as sergeant and he's uh been with us uh doing that and doing a really great job uh for the city of Lake Elmo uh but other positions that he finds himself in uh as well. So [clears throat] wanted to point those three out uh as well. So, within uh the sheriff's office, here's your team. Um you have Sergeant Ty Jacobson, who I just uh introduced, Deputy Anthony Palmer, Deputy Tristan Moravski, Deputy Shane Thorston, Deputy Daniel Wolf, Deputy Jackson Sers, uh Deputy Joseph Maloney, and then Deputy Tyler Freeman is actually uh assigned here as well, but he is paid by the city of Landfall. Uh when we started this >> project uh with uh a police contract with landfall um we wanted to make sure that uh there was a sergeant that oversaw that sergeant. So we worked with the city of Lake Elmo. So basically you get one deputy not for free uh but sort of for free right he's he is here serves the city of landfall but most of the time he is serving both Lake Elmo and the city of uh landfall so uh which is really good why uh we are here tonight is basically uh for these reasons the increase in residential area and [clears throat] the population certainly We continue to see the growth in Lake Elmo, whether it is commercial, whether it's residential, we certainly have a lot of new neighborhoods that are popping up and are planned uh here in the future. And for us with the sheriff's office, it would not be uh it wouldn't be wise uh for us to not plan ahead. And basically, this is uh what we are doing. We're making sure we started meeting with uh proceding [clears throat] administrator Han uh back in the day and sort of laid out our vision of when we needed um um those uh hirings uh at what time. Uh we certainly met with Nicole, made sure that she was aware of where we are and where we need to be as we get [clears throat] going as well. Um, so residential area, the population, the increase in commercial businesses, proactive traffic enforcement, you will see here in a little bit, problem oriented policing. Basically, that's our uh proactive patrols. We want to be out there. We want to be present, but we also want to be at the community events that you have and wish to have uh in the future. The other side of all of this is officer safety. our calls could continue to get more complex uh with substance use of a disorder uh with mental health challenges that we continue to see out there. Most of these [clears throat] calls are to deputy calls that we go to. Fire chief can speak to that as well. They certainly see the the same type of thing on on their calls. Um officer safety is uh very paramount. We want to make sure our people are safe uh out there. our reports and calls for service. Uh, our number of calls for service actually decreased and you can see that [clears throat] line one from 10,667 down to 9,676. Uh, so roughly about uh a thousand calls that they went down. However, what you will also notice is the total reports that are generated actually went up by about 250 uh reports. That means those are the types of calls that we go on to that are two deputy or three deputy calls or uh calls in for service and then there's got to be a report at the end of it because the state needs to be notified the hospitals need to be uh notified community services uh social services etc. There's more to do than that. So >> so just question just trying to understand that. So each deputy that reports to a call has to fill out a report >> depending on what. So if for example if you go to um a lockout, you know, someone locks their keys in the cars. No. >> Okay. But anything else uh that needs to go somewhere um whether it's the prosecuting attorney, the county attorney, social services, all of those uh need reports. >> Okay. >> Um domestic abuse, uh the state law just changed August 1st. So any type of domestic related situations need a report that st statem mandated as of August 1st. Sometimes there was verbal arguments and it really wasn't you couldn't really wasn't an argument. Um you get there and it's really a a nothing deal that now requires a report and that will add only add to this. >> Sure. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] >> One of the things that we talked about is proactive policing. Um this slide right here uh what you see is our citations issued in 25 809 citations that were issued uh versus 2024 the 534. What we had saw uh in correlation to that is the motor vehicle accidents actually went down uh in 2025 and you can see that from 263 and 24 to 247. We correlate that to our active proactive uh policing style with traffic enforcement. On top of that, uh we we it was just over 3,000 traffic stops [clears throat] uh that we made in the city of Lake Elmo alone last year. Uh so about what is that about one out of every three traffic stops gets a citation. A lot of warnings, a lot of verbal warnings, things like that. But those that need a ticket, they get tickets. There's no doubt about that. And we do see by being out there, stopping cars, being proactive that our accidents are going down. And hopefully that will continue uh to go down. Our arrests, uh you'll see uh our total arrests basically stayed the same uh from 172 to 171 arrests. So those are staying about the same. our DWI arrests, it went up by two, but basically those stayed the same, too. Uh, but you you can see 50 58 arrests for DWIs. DWIs take about 3 hours to process. Uh, so you get one and then depending on if it's a alcohol DWI or if it's a substance uh DWI, [clears throat] it's totally different. They have to call a drug recognition expert in, they have to take vitals, they have to do all this stuff. and it it does tie up the officer for quite a while with that. So, as I talked about the mental health and sub substant use calls uh calls for service, we saw a slight uh increase from 24 to 25 of three. Uh what I will say about these calls is all all these calls do take a report. They do go to social services, community services at the county. Um, and then a lot of these are transported uh by Lake FIA ambulance, uh, the mental health. If they're in crisis, they they go down [clears throat] to regions. Um, and so there's, uh, transport holes and, etc., and paperwork that is filled out with that as well. And the county has community resource people up for those calls to help out the deputies, [clears throat] right? >> So, we have a uh crisis response team. Uh they work Monday through Friday >> and they work 8 to 4 and that is with our social workers uh that work during those times as well. >> Um what I will say is we do things a [clears throat] little bit different than like the city of Woodbury. They have the same program. uh you'll see them being out there um at the call. They ne they don't necessarily take over the call. They assist for what we end up doing is we we're so busy that we look at how do we stop the calls to begin with. So our team will look at every call that comes in the next day and figure out what kind of services do they need. They reach out to the people. they reach out to the services and we try to stop the repeat offenders and get them the help and the services that they need. So it does not take up the deputies time out on the street. >> And I'm assuming you deputies find that more effective than previously not having that. >> Very much so. Very much so. Um I you know we started this we started looking at this uh a few years ago. We partnered with [clears throat] Washington County Community Services and we we had them in our jail uh social workers and we saw the effectiveness uh in there because once they go into the jail, what do we do with them at that point, right? We got to get them the services. We got to get them the help that they need. So when they get out of the jail that they have the services and they [clears throat] don't uh potentially reaffend. Uh same type of thing out on the street is if we can stop that uh ahead of time, that's that's our goal. Uh get them the services that they need before uh before they actually call 911 and tie up our deputies, our fire, our ambulance services to transport them. >> Great. One of the things that I I'm very proud of uh the sheriff's office [clears throat] besides the police contract and the deputies that are here, these are the services that also come in. And uh Mayor, I saw your post uh uh yesterday on on Facebook uh about uh the Austin County Sheriff's Office. Thank you for that. But I wanted to make sure that everyone knows uh what you all get. This is stuff that is not paid for. This is just the service that you get. If you had your own police department, you would have to pay for all of this stuff extra. So, we just talked about the coordinated response uh unit, the embedded social worker program. We talked about uh so we uh there was a new law that went into effect last year where we have to have an embedded social worker in our communication center as well. So, we do have that hopefully on that. Hopefully when the calls come in, if it's a lower call that doesn't include harm to themselves, that it can be transferred over to the social worker and they can get them the services that they need instead of requesting law enforcement's help. Uh the community service officer, the cso program, these are our uh it's a newer program that we started a couple years ago. Basically, this is a great recruiting tool for us. Uh it brings in those uh uh students uh that are going to law enforcement that are looking to get a little ahead in the law enforcement field, taking calls, things like that. Um what we have found out is then they stay with us. They they can choose their hours. Typically it's on the weekends that they work. Uh which is a force multiplier for our deputies. uh DWI there's typically a car that's associated with it and the deputies got to sit there had to sit there with the car till the tow truck came the csos can now do that or they can take the prisoner down to the jail if there is an arrest so I mean just it's great it's great for these uh kids that are going to law enforcement we've already hired three out [clears throat] of that program in such a short year so that's been uh very beneficial for us the community impact unit uh our community survey uh back in 2023 came out and said our public and our citizens are scared of our roadways. And so we started this community impact unit. It's a sergeant and two deputies and they just go out and they they do traffic. Uh wherever the citizens call in and complain and wherever we see the most accidents uh any [clears throat] time day or night, they're out there. They switch up their hours all the time. You don't know what they're working. Uh they do have a uh Ford Bronco uh as well. If you see a a Ford Bronco uh with all kinds [clears throat] of cameras on it, might be might be them. Um so they do a wonderful job. We also uh from the state uh we have a DWI enforcement uh deputy and that is completely paid for by the state uh making [clears throat] sure that we're trying to get the DWIs off the road so we prevent injuries and fatalities out on our roadways. our community engagement team. Certainly, we just uh had some of our team out here uh for National Night Out and other engagements at the fair, etc. Uh this is one of the ways that we can get out engage with our public. Uh instead of making instead of something occurring and then we they're learning who we are and what we are, [clears throat] we're already out there meeting the our community uh out on uh in the residential areas. our training unit. Um much like uh fire, there's a lot of training requirements uh to get your post license and to keep your post license uh up to date. Uh certainly the state continues to to mandate uh courses that we have to take. uh whether it's firearms, whether it's less lethal, whether it's defensive tactics, whether it's uh um dealing with uh individuals with autism, more persons in crisis. Uh there's a lot of state mandates that they place on us. They audit us every year. We got to make sure [clears throat] that all of our ducks are in a row for that. And so we have a training uh unit uh to do that. Uh we just uh purchased a sheriff's uh training academy and response center. Uh this is the old Century College uh uh building down along I94 as you go into Hudson West Lakeland Afton area. Uh and we use that for our training and we'll continue to do that. Our water parks and trails unit is also housed out of there uh as well. They're closed to the St. Croy and some of our lakes like Lake Elmo, etc. Supervision 24 by7. Uh when Tai when Tai leaves, uh someone's got to still be here to supervise those deputies that are still out on the street and uh the supervision is all included in that 24/7. We have our records, our records requests, our data requests because we get a lot of data. I'm sure you all do too. Uh and we get a lot of requests and just making sure that all the paperwork goes to and from and all the audits are uh recorded. State crime reporting uh for our violent crimes in our uh part one part two crimes they all go into a system called the national instate uh reported database. They all go there and that is uh we have to do that yearly. Evidence room. Uh all of these cases that we do typically involve some type of evidence that we need to collect either for safekeeping because they're in jail or for evidence. So evidence management uh we have a person in there that just deals with all of our evidence [clears throat] gets it uh if it needs to go to forefeiter etc or it go goes over to court uh for trial making sure everything is done correctly. Our public information officers support uh anything that we have. We have a we have a PIO uh that if needed, they're uh in house and they're available to us uh at a call uh as well. They're within the sheriff's office. We have a lot of squad cars, a lot of squad cars and uh fleet management. Our squad cars continue to go up in in price. Uh but we we have to make sure that uh we have working [clears throat] squad cars for all of our deputies that hit the hit the roads. Uh but besides that, it's just the the fleet side of it is the oil changes. It's the tires, what happens when you hit it here. Uh unfortunately, we hit quite a few deer uh during the year. So, it's just one of the things working with the insurance company and making sure that that's all done. All of that is uh completed uh in free of charge. And then we have about almost 200 well 291 employees, full-time employees within the sheriff's office. Uh so what you see in Lake Elmo is a small group of what we have, but we [clears throat] also do all of the HR and all the mandates that the state uh has in regards to that. So a lot of additional services uh that you get with the sheriff's office. Any questions on those? >> The uh 2027 police service cost uh currently for 2027, if if we stayed the same, it's one sergeant and six deputies. Uh the total annual contract cost is $1.4 uh million. That is uh approximately about $98 per capita uh at this point. Uh if you go to any other city, I guarantee you that they're closing in on $200 to $300 per capita per person. What we're asking for is to add an additional deputy because of the things that we had talked about before. Uh that proposed police service cost would go up to $1.6 million. That comes out to about $11 more per capita. per person within the city of Lake Elmo. >> So, that would have been a good number for my pope. >> We Yeah. [clears throat] So, it uh it comes out to $109 instead of $98 per capita. So, it's about $11 uh increase uh for that. Um again, everything that comes uh with that. >> Sure, we have a question. >> Yes. Sorry. [clears throat] So looking at the table here, >> yep, >> we have deputies pay 7 FTE 16,296 units, which I would assume is the hour rate, right? >> So I was confused because 20080 is full-time employee and [clears throat] time 7 is 14,560. So I'm wondering what that difference is. >> Yeah. So, for the city or for uh Lake Elmo and all, well, for Washington County law enforcement, [clears throat] for the most part, we don't work a 40-hour work week. >> Uh we we are off of 171 hours in a month. >> Okay. >> And so that's really what that comes down to is the hours that that we work with. So, >> yeah, because I was looking at the other sheet, the slide before this, too. if you take 12,480 and divide that by 20080 was six evenly. So I was just curious >> what that difference was why that wasn't the same. >> Yeah, you'll you'll see on our time cards sometimes it's uh in a work week it's 50 hours instead of 40 hours and it's all at straight time. >> Okay, got it. under uh FELSA they they allow law enforcement to use the one. >> That way we don't have pay. >> And then can you explain shift differential as well? >> Yeah, absolutely. The the shift differential basically is the number of hours uh that they get. We call it premium pay, but it's extra pay for working holidays and working uh afternoons and midnights. The day shift does not get them. That's why the hours are shorter uh on that. Not everyone gets the shift differential >> and so that's yeah that's that's sort of like premium pay and something that uh the contracts uh with the union sell out. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Question. And with that, I will I will say being sheriff and being here almost 34 years, we have a great team. I am so proud of of our team. If you sit and just look at the the four of us, uh we're over a 100red years of service. We're proud of what we do. Uh we're proud of the agency. We're proud to serve uh the city of Lake Elmo, all of our police contracts. We want you to think of us as your police department. That's the way it should be. If you have any questions, you should always ask. Uh that's how it should be and that's how it's meant to run. Uh us police department. Like I said, we have uh 291 uh uh full-time employees, and that goes from our emergency communication response center, uh which is our 911 communication center. We have all of our correctional officers that uh deal with all the inmates that come on come on in. We have our courts division uh that we have to uh provide security for uh by law. Our water parks and trails unit. Uh our emergency management uh you've heard uh from Director Bugland in the past. Uh he is within the sheriff's office. So if there's a plane crash, any disaster, uh that team comes on out and assists the cities uh as we go. And I know he's done training for city councils and other council members here uh within within the last couple years. So um this is uh I just want to say thank you. Thank you to you all. Uh reminder that this is a recommendation. It's a proposal. It's our proposal to you. we work in partnership to uh come up with this and that's truly what it comes out to be. But uh I for for my years on I'm coming to my end. I got about [clears throat] five months left. Uh Doug's got uh somewhere between now and five months, probably one bad day away. Um but uh he's uh he's also retiring along with me this year. Uh you hear about retention and recruiting. Uh we had 12 retirements uh this year and that doesn't include us that are going out the door a lot. The one thing I will say is that Washington County continues uh to be be the premier agency one that a lot of people want to come to and we it's because of the team. They do a great job [clears throat] day in and day out. I'm so proud of them. So with that I'll stand for any questions. >> One last question. When is the last time that we added a deputy or a sergeant to the uh to the city force here. >> I believe three four four years ago >> I believe approximately. Got it. Cool. Thank you. >> I think it was two years ago. [cough] >> More recent than that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So in 20 27 P3. So Got it. [clears throat] >> So we went from six deputies to seven deputies, but our our units went up by almost 4,000. So, we're at six deputies. You had 12,480, about 2,000 hours roughly. And you go to seven deputies and you jump up to 16,000 hours, which seems it seems like it went up by almost 4,000 hours to add one deputy. >> 7.8 FTE. >> We have seven FTEEs. We had six FTES, >> right? What I'm saying is the 16,000 if you divide that out, it's 7.8 FTES instead of 7.0 FTES. That was my question earlier as well. >> So, one of the things that's calculated in as well is when they're on vacation, we have to fill those spots as well. You are never without someone within your your area. So, um if There is a deputy that takes vacation. They all acrew vacation. They acrew PTO, sick time, things like that. Most of the time if if you if you take off, that's not filled. We fill it. We make sure that you never go without police protection. It's just the the proportion change per per FTE. You had six before about 2,000. Seven at you about 3,000. >> Doug, anything? >> I'll check with you. We'll we'll get back to you. Okay. We'll double check. >> Okay. >> We want to make sure it's accurate. >> Yeah. >> It probably is. Just it just seemed like it was a much bigger jump than you would have anticipated. >> Yeah. >> And understand, you know, you have to factor in all of your vacation and you know, you have 280 hours of standard work [clears throat] year, but that doesn't include vacation time and sick time and all the other stuff. And then you got your relief factor you have to build into that. >> She has a formula that she plugs in. I will definitely help. >> Thank you. >> We'll get you answer. >> Was there was there anything with some of the data you've been seeing like you presented data showing a quarter roughly of uh was it arrests in Lake Elmo or DWI? Is that surprising to you? Is it [clears throat] similar trend for similar cities? Is it an outlier? I don't think it uh council member I don't think it's an outlier at all. Uh we continue to see within Washington County, within the metro, we continue to see um the the violations of the DBI laws. It's it is incredible. I think we are Blushing County is a a um a county where people come out to relax for cabins on the river uh and etc. And they don't stay here at night. There's a few hotels etc like that. So what we end up seeing is that they come out, they they go to our cities, they recreate and then they go home. >> Gotcha. And unfortunately they don't have a designated driver. A lot of these that we get certainly they're proactive by our DWI people. However, we also find them in accidents as well. And that's that's all of it's concerning. Um but Washington County is usually in the top five of fatalities every year. >> Oh wow. We continued, we were on a great path this [snorts] year and within the last month, our fatalities rose up. Unfortunately, we're going to be right back in that time frame. We continue to work. We continue to hit hard. We continue to talk to our our bars about not overs serving. That's one of the [clears throat] things that our division does as well gets out there and make sure that uh our bartenders and those that are the waitresses waiters, the weight staff that were out there making sure that they're educated as well. Uh but unfortunately that's we do see that. And so that was kind of be my next question. Obviously we're not a charter city. We have very limited tools that we as a as a council have but what would you want us to be aware of for our consideration moving forward whether it's for DWI or certain other trends that we ourselves need to be aware of for the limited tools that we have. I I think for for us especially with the community survey that uh for the last two if not three of them that went out it is about our roadways as far as DWI about distracted driving and about fear of riding their bikes on our roadways and those are always the top three or have been >> uh the s last several surveys. It's an interesting thing when you look at everything else that goes on in public safety. Uh we are very fortunate to live and work in Washington County. We have great people. We have great partners. Um our roadways are good. They're wide. A lot of them are wide. Um we don't see a lot of fatalities with bikers, but what we end up seeing is a lot of distracted driving. Hence like the Bronco vehicle uh that's out there. We try to be proactive uh as well. We don't we try not to [clears throat] to be the gotcha, but at some point we have to be responsible for us driving. Uh right now it's the ebikes, it's the e scooters, it's the e dirt bikes. We're seeing a rise not only in Washington County or in Lake Elmo, but throughout uh Minnesota. Uh Hastings just and another one that was severely injured. We have them as well. Uh and that's going to be our our next thing is how do we regulate this? One of the things that uh as sheriff I continue to do is uh be present down in speaking with our whether it's speaking with our legislators here within Washington County or down at the capital making sure that our needs are heard uh as well and the things that we're seeing out here. We want to make sure that we have at least conversations with those that are responsible for passing the laws, regulating those because that affects us all. Um, recently, uh, obviously you saw a lot of the cities that are reducing their speed limits as well, right? I mean, that was one of the things that the legislators ended up doing, saying that cities could do that now. Um, will it help? I don't know. Um it it it'll less speed should mean less injuries hopefully. I we'll we'll see as the data comes in. >> Well, thank you for that and thank you Sheriff for your time and for yours as well for your careers. It's been appreciated. >> Council member. >> Yeah, thank thank you for all you do. um with the the variables that were presented tonight, where is the data trending for 2026 so far >> as far as crime >> uh for all these all the variables that were presented? So the calls for service, total reports, citations issued, motor vehicles >> in 2026, where are we sitting at for these variables? >> What I'll say is uh certainly the year is not done. the trending is that they're about the same or more. Um certainly the citations, certainly the um calls for service are up. Mental health calls will will be up as well. Um I don't know why that is. I wish I wish I knew. Uh the persons in crisis that we respond to continue to be quite a few. Uh and I'm not sure why that is, but law enforcement gets called to them quite a bit. But it's not just law enforcement, right? I mean, a lot of these persons in crisis and our fire [clears throat] department uh or our EMS as well. It eyes up a lot. But our our trends are we wouldn't I I don't come often to ask. I'm guessing that um if you look at the the trends in law enforcement like uh the city of Woodbury, it's one officer per thousand. Um I try to get one officer per 2,000. people. We know that that's the the standard throughout. Um, but I also know that all of these calls take two deputies if not more. Uh, we do have a deputy that's in this area. We call it the self-center. Uh, it's a general patrol deputy and they they range from uh highway 36 down to I94. That person's in Lake Elmo. Uh they're supposed to be out in Baytown covering some of those calls, but they're they're in here quite a bit. Um so we try to we try to we try not to come uh too often because we also know that this guy's burden on taxpayers. We understand that. And so once the the stats show it, once we see the growth coming in, we don't want to be caught off guard as well with uh some of the things that we continue to see when population growth comes that you need for populations. That's a a good stat to know. Do you think is it possible to have that data shared with us to show where we're at in 2026 currently? And I I don't know if there's seasonal fluctuations. So if it you know, if you look at and you're like, well, yeah, it's way low, but we expect a surge in December. If you could maybe show year to date 2025 compared to year to date to 2020. If that would be >> helpful to make the data make sense. I just I think that would be helpful to understand. And maybe the followup question to that would be, do you feel like we were underststaffed in 2025? So the previous year, were we already understaffed? >> I think I think if you ask any of our deputies out on that serve your community, you you will hear that or understand >> and would that be >> and that's Go ahead. Go ahead. That is because uh usually it's it's the two persons uh that pretty soon they're they're there by themselves because they don't have someone there with or they're waiting for. >> So bringing this deputy on would be more trying to catch up maybe because we're already low is what it sounds like. Yeah, I would say that for for me and what I would say that this would this will tie us over for a few years to come. No doubt about that. >> Do we have to Are you guys planning [clears throat] on adding another vehicle as well? >> The vehic Yeah, the vehicle cost is in it. So, we go off of mileage >> and so we don't charge you for the $50,000 $60,000 vehicle. We just do it uh by mileage. We don't think it's fair uh for you guys [snorts] to have to purchase that vehicle and all the equipment in it. >> So, we do charge uh by mileage. You'll see that uh each one of our uh uh deputies has their own assigned vehicle. And so, when you're talking about seven, eight, they all have their own. uh that would be a $400,000 bill right we switch them out every two to three years it gets expensive for the city we feel that it's part of the sheriff's office to make sure that we have the equipment uh to do it uh but a lot of that mileage just comes down to uh the cost of fuel as well I mean we're at 399 luckily uh back in 2008 uh we started looking I was in charge of our fleet at the time. We were looking at uh how do we how do we save on fuel? And uh so us and Still Water and our public works got together and we're going to merge our fuels because we're all three of us were purchasing fuel separately. And so at that time uh we were going to do this and get a consortium together. [snorts] City of St. Paul reached out said hey we're thinking about doing that as well. you want to jump in with us? We said yes. In two months, we had the whole state on uh we lock in our fuel price typically in February or March. And so typically we get a lower price in fuel and that is good for all year. >> Uh we just have to promise that we're going to buy so many so many gallons which we always hit our mark is that's [snorts] never an issue. If we go over, we just pay the 399 uh that you see minus the the taxes. But >> and then um is the 157,000 is that for all cruisers throughout the year? So what I was what I'm getting at is the year before it's still showing 157,500 and then the next year adding a vehicle still 157500. So, >> it would still it's [clears throat] not a lot of money, but I just want to reflect that. >> Yeah, we don't we don't think that is going to add a lot of mileage to um what we're driving. I think we'll be >> adding another cruiser won't add to that total. >> Okay. >> So, just to go back to the with the the two deputy calls. So what happens currently then if if we're in a situation where there is two deputies and again I don't this is we can talk about it but I mean do they have to wait then to go to the call dependence what the call is if it's if it's occurring and it's violent we have to go we have to go in if there's an active shooting we don't get we have to go we certainly seen uh those type of things in Florida where they waited and the bad disastrous consequences we don't have that luxury Uh if it's if it's something that [clears throat] um requires a twoperson call like mental health, it's a person in crisis. They're in there alone, but we got to go in and check on them. We'll wait. So whether that's the south center car coming on over or we have a north center car as well. So 36, however, uh if they have to come down and help us, we'll we'll do that as well. And would we always be in that situation where we would only have the ability to send one or is it only certain shifts that that we run into that issue? >> So we we started we we just went to a 12-h hour shift and so we should be pretty good with two on for the most part. >> So >> with with six or with seven >> with seven >> with seven. And then if we went to six, I guess then what does is that once a a day for an eight hour shift or a 12 hour shift you >> potentially >> and then again someone goes gets a DWI >> or they arrest someone and then there's no one, [clears throat] >> right? And that's not what we want. >> I guess maybe just one more followup. How often has that happened over the past year? Is that is it a kind of a weekly occurrence? Is it a monthly occurrence, a daily occurrence? >> Sergeant, you you're in it every day >> as of right now with a 12-h hour schedule that we're working between the hours of midnight 6:30 in the morning. So, we were to add one more schedule. So we would increase our coverage and give us more times that we have at least two people. There will still be a little gap early morning. Is it happening quite a bit currently where you get these situations where two deputies should be going with current levels that happen pretty frequently already. Yeah, there's a lot of calls that should be going and sheriff said they're in Lake Elmo call depending on where General is back even with our neighboring agencies depending [clears throat] on where the call is. for our neighboring >> again just I guess a little more is that like a daily thing that's happening weekly monthly >> it could be daily couple days it might not happen but it's a common occurrence >> so like it's safe to say it's happen [clears throat] >> part Our goal with all our contracts is to get to at least that two deputies on at a time and that's what we pretty much have at a time 12 hour shift really allow us to have that team two on at a time. Okay. >> I just I think that's really helpful information to know too. I guess for I won't have to give too many more presentations is what it sounds like but I think that is really helpful information to know from you know what I saw these I was you know I'm very happy with the services that we have and it feels like you know the deputies are doing a great job but understanding that we're putting you in a very dangerous situation that's that's really helpful to know >> well certainly speaking for the city we appreate appreciate the partnership with Washington County. We uh my time here we've had Sergeant Ericson and Sergeant Jacobson and they've been wonderful to work with and very helpful and uh present at our community events and we we think that uh bodess well for you know whether it's the Fourth of July or National Night Out just having that exposure with the community to know that uh you guys are here and providing the public public service. So, um, thank you very much. >> Appreciate. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Our uh, next item on the agenda is CIP project F-012, ladder one replacement project. Chief is presenting Thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh, just wanted to take a little time tonight to kind of update you on this project, um, and kind of where we're at, kind of how we got to where we're at. It's a big project, so I I did feel it was important to kind of fill you in on on our current status. Um, this time last year is when we first started talking about this project and moving it up in the CIP five years. Again, um our current ladder operationally u I feel is it puts us at a disadvantage given its current length and looking at the current build times and where our vehicle replacement schedule puts this truck at. Um I did request last year to move this truck up five years in the in the CIP plan and to take most of 26 to kind of evaluate um the market, the models that are out there, what's available to us, um what's available to us with the the budget that we proposed last year and uh kind of move that forward. And um today we're kind of at a point where we've basically evaluated uh three manufacturers and five total models with our truck committee. We we set a truck committee of fire department staff and have been meeting since February. Um we've evaluated these five different models, these three different manufacturers and trying to find what fits best for um our department needs today and definitely into the future. Um we've looked at the Rosenbower product, Pierce product, and E1. And what we've learned, it's definitely not apples to apples when you're looking at um firet trucks, but it's definitely not apples to apples when you're looking at ladder trucks and platforms and all the different um combinations you can come up with, right? Um firetruck markets changed quite a bit over the past couple years. Um, when we we set the budget last year, just to kind of throw a number out there really, um, based on information I had from other departments and their current builds and kind of where where the market looked, you know, we set the budget at 2.2 million as the absolute high end, right? Um it didn't mean that we were going to try to squeeze, you know, every cent out of that budget. Um and and really tked our truck committee to to look at what was out there. Um what they feel as staff that they need to operate with and uh how we can move forward hopefully with a plan to ultimately purchase the vehicle that they speced out through this process. Um I bring up our truck, the current truck we have. It's it's a 78T stick. Um, if this truck was 100 feet, like I I I know I brought this up last year, but um, operationally, it really puts us at a disadvantage being a shorter apparatus. That truck was [clears throat] specked in 2012, 2013. Um, when there was a mindset in the city that we weren't going to grow, we weren't going to have development. And frankly, the highest building we'll ever see is High Point Surgery Center. Um, so why do we need something at 100 ft? Um, fast forward to now, obviously, our community is changing rapidly and that really operationally puts us at a disadvantage with a truck that's that short. Um, you don't build a fire truck or a ladder truck to reach your highest building and um, you know, if we had a 200T building, it's not like we're going to propose a 300T firet truck to to get there. Um, but we we do feel that it's important when we're looking at the replacement of this to we need that extra length and operational um needs that come with that truck. So, um, starting in February, our truck committee, like I said, met with three manufacturers and trying to figure out what's what's best. Um, our current truck is a single axle, um, which is great because it's pretty maneuverable. It's a compact truck. Um, the wheelbase is short. It helps us navigate in tone. Um, what we've seen though and what we hear from our maintenance provider is there's a lot of weight on that single axle and and that puts a lot of wear and tear on on the life of a truck. Um, we've gone through two rear brakes on that truck in the past year. Um, which is abnormal. Um, but when we talk to our our our repair company, they're seeing more and more issues with single axle trucks just because we're trying to maximize these single axles with a trying to max them out as best we can. So, that's where we started to kind of go back and forth. We look at a single axle solely based on its footprint or do we look at a tandem axle when we look at, you know, overall the wear and tear of the truck, how the truck performs. And frankly, when you go to a tanm axle, you you you do get into a more heavyduty truck. Um it's able to handle quite a bit more. There are some limitations when you look at a truck of a single axle. Um technology's gotten pretty incredible over the past few years with trucks, but there are some limitations. So, we've been able to we've been able to get hands on on all three manufacturers and and have the truck committee really go out and tour um the majority of the trucks that we thought would fit within our our scope of what we're looking at. Um we've been able to demo E1. They're a truck manufacturer out of Florida. We've been able to uh demo and get hands-on on the multiple Pierce products that um were presented to us within budget. Um they're based out of Appleton, Wisconsin. And then we've looked at the the Rosenbower products that we're most familiar with um based out of Wyoming, Minnesota. Um where we're at right now is getting feedback from my truck committee and and the staff that ultimately use the truck. Um their ultimate preference was, you know, they think they they they feel most comfortable moving to a platform type truck. That's your typical bucket truck that goes up. Um big platform tower. um does all the same functions with spraying water and master stream out the top, but it it gives you the ability to have a working platform for two or three firefighters, most likely two, especially when you're spraying water. Um the ability to have a safe work platform and [snorts] you know, that was the feedback from staff. Um where I started the truck committee presentation was we wouldn't even be in the room if our current truck was 100 feet. we let that truck go as long as the vehicle replacement plan was and we would just operate that. Um but when we started evaluating trucks and just knowing the differences, um the added safety and and workability of the platform kind of came into play too. Um and this is where things with the manufacturers changed dramatically, right? I mean um the E1 product that we look at is a single axle straight stick 100 foot um apparatus. Um the Pierce products that we looked at one was a 107 foot straight stick single axle and another one they have a unique single axle with a platform. It's a it's a it's more of like a utility basket on the end of it. not not a huge robust um but it's it's used by a lot of fire departments. We've we've been able to get hands on with some recent deliveries here in the metro area. Um and then we looked at two um apparatus from Rosenbower. Um both of those though are tandem axles. One's 109 foot straight stick and another one's 101 platform bucket. So there's a lot of differences. Um Pierce has a patent on uh a single axle with a with a bucket. So that's kind of the very unique um way of where [snorts] they're at in the firetruck market. Um Rosenbower used to have something like that, but then obviously when another company has a patent over some engineering, you you no longer can manufacture that type of truck. So, um we we use the truck committee to kind of evaluate a lot of different things and build out a spec of of where we think we're at um giving what our needs are today and and in the future. So, um, going through things, our our truck committee felt like they they really are happy with the Rosenbower product. Um, we're we're fortunate to have a fleet that has a cab that basically would be utilized in [snorts] almost all of our frontline apparatus. Um, going to a Pierce product wouldn't stray too far from, you know, a cab layout and what our staff are familiar with. Um the E1 product was a completely different um product with cab design and layout that um was vastly different than what we're used to. Um so we we kept kind of the the truck committee kept leaning towards the the Rosenbower product um ultimately for what you can get for a tandem axle with a platform at its price point. Um last month when we were at the CIP um workshop, I gave a a brief update that the working with the manufacturers we we're kind of getting that start at 2.2 million and kind of get down I said you know our maximum at that point a month ago was um 1.9 million or 1.925 I think is what we we needed a number and and put that number in. Um, right now I'm still waiting on on kind of a final review um of two things. The the final spec from Rosenbower and kind of the an equipment list that we need to kind of build out that truck because it is a little bit bigger than our current truck. Um, I don't anticipate this truck being over 1.9 million um with equipment when it's all said and done from the Rosen product. So, it puts us at a ballpark where again when we're, you know, trying to compare trucks with other the four other models that we've looked at, um, everything that we're seeing ranges from 1.7 million up to 2.2 million for the five models that we've looked at. Um, then the other difference is timeline. Rosenbower um is roughly two and a half year build time for their tandem axle. If we were to look at a similar truck from Pierce, it's probably pushing 2.4 million given specification and it's right now about fouryear build time. E1 has a similar with a platform of of build time similar pricing now because purchasing consortiums are are have become very popular and and we're able to use them through Sourcewell or HGAC. Um pricing of fire trucks has become very similar. Uh but Pierce has a market on their own pack our diesel motor that that they they only have access to. So it's becoming a little different to get you know a true apples to apples comparison. Um but I'd say the the truck that our truck committee has kind of ended up with right now today. Um, if we were to compare from manufacturers, you know, Rosenbower looks like this one is is right around 1.9 million, hopefully a little less than that. And and I think for both E1 and Pierce, we'd be over 2 million for that same truck. with the time it takes to work with a manufacturer and and frankly a salesperson. Once we got some of the initial numbers back from the other manufacturers from E1 and Pierce, I kind of just let those two sit out there, especially given feedback from my truck committee whose, you know, work preference and operational preference was trending towards Rosenbower. Um the base prices that I got from Pierce and E1 >> [snorts] >> um I definitely anticipate those rising as we we're able to kind of tweak and adjust the spec to what we're we're looking for. So that's where we're at today. The the truck committee's been working with uh um as a group just to kind of dial this spec in and make sure that we're building something that um we need, not something that we want. nothing that's over the top. Um, but definitely looking at the long range for what this community is going to need down the road. It's a big project and that's why I wanted to spend some time tonight to to just kind of fill you in and give you an update on where we're at. Um, how our process has been working. Um, you know, given our conversation tonight, um, I I would like to come back in October for formal purchase to get ourselves in line and and and get an order placed so we get, you know, in line for the build um with still an anticipated delivery of of 2029. But um you know this is a big project and I definitely want your feedback um with that now that we actually have some much more concrete numbers and an idea of the direction that we are looking at. So with that I'll I'll stand for questions. >> Council member Craig. So you're talking about the tandem axle trucks. you were saying they weren't as maneuverable. >> Would that allow you to get through some of these tighter streets even with like future neighborhoods like Bridgewater and stuff like that? >> That's that's always, you know, that's kind of been the first concern of our when that was the first conversation we had. What do we look at for for size of this truck? And we're always looking at maneuverability and how we get around town. Um the good thing is is when we plan neighborhoods today, you know, I'm lucky to work with the planning department and you know, we're able to utilize the fire code in a smart way and make sure that our road widths and and our engineering behind these roads and and road widths um are able to they're designed in a way to to with emergency services in mind. Uh there's no perfect scenario where we're going to have the perfect scene that this truck's going to be, you know, placed positioned right, you know, right away. Um we train, we we teach our staff how to stage all their apparatus to make sure that there's always room for a ladder truck um on these scenes. Um but one of the marks that, you know, one of the things that stood out for my staff is we've been driving Tender 2, which has got a new home as of last week. That was a big big tandem axle truck and we've we've driven that in this city since 2006 when we took delivery. So that truck has been through Old Lake Elmo, current Lake Elmo, and you know, anything that we have. Um, and when we started comparing turning radiuses and specs, the the modern fire trucks turn a lot better than what that 2006 one. So that ultimately that didn't scare us away and and we were able to kind of get hands-on and get down to Cottage Grove and drive, you know, their truck and and talk to other departments and kind of quell some of those fears. >> Okay. >> Just it's it's one of those things that I don't know if there's a perfect scenario for for every >> sure >> every neighborhood and every street, but you know, we our truck committee felt confident that even going to a tandem axle that um we've handled that before. Okay. And have you had any instances with this 78 foot ladder that held you back where that extra 22 feet would have really come in handy there? >> I don't want to sound extreme, but it feels like every time that truck's got to go up, we're at a dis disadvantage. Um, >> three years ago, four years ago, we had a a house fire on Little Blue Stem. Um, even backing that truck up into the driveway, we couldn't get to the other side of the house. Um, that was post major knockdown of the fire, right? That fire started on the outside. It was well involved, a lot of damage. Um, we don't just look at tall buildings for the ladder truck, but just our a single family home with a a pretty typical um setback here in in town. We lose a lot of reach just because we're we're farther away from the home. So, a 40 50 foot setback, 60 foot setback, >> we lose a lot of our operational vertical height with the reach. Um, you know, it's not a smart move if you talk about a commercial fire. We're never going to put our truck right next to the building. Um, so the math doesn't work out. You know, you you start losing a lot of vertical reach. Um, I look at what we're seeing now and what we're developing on Hudson Boulevard and to the south. Our our ladder truck is maxed out. I mean, I I want to try to be able to get on top of a a roof structure on Crossroads East. um you know that building's 30 feet high, but if we're 30 feet away, you know, we're we're losing a lot of reach and our capabilities become less and less the taller and taller that building gets. >> There's not a building, you know, we build a sevenstory building. I'm not going to sit here propose a ladder truck that gets to the top of that one. Those >> they don't exist in the US, right? They do. They're they're pretty crazy, right? Um but we're we're maxed out. I think uh the Dorian apartment at its highest point on the northwest corner when you look at the grade it's almost it's 80 plus feet. Um it's just going to make it a challenge for us to do any firefighting operations. Um when we're talking about getting to the top of these buildings for roof fires or you know if we have to get up to windows for for rescues but um our current one we we are we were maxed out the day we got it. >> Okay. And I think um when I went back in time, I mean the the department's preference was to get 100 foot plus and there was just a lot of negotiating back then and you know I I do believe they kind of settled on on that and that's just what the handler would have built back then. >> Sure. One dumb question. Can you just swap out a ladder like a 100 foot ladder onto that truck or the truck built around that? >> No, I I wish we could. That would be I would be pro proposing that right now if if that was something that we could actually do. The truck itself is engineered around the length of the ladder. There's a torque box that kind of does the the most of the uh the physics uh on that chassis. Um there there's that chassis is designed for that uh for that 78 foot and you couldn't add anything more to that. >> Got it. >> We also have to be very mindful of the amount of equipment that goes into it. Everything that we put on there is is going to add weight to that truck. um everything we do from the crew size to how many people are in the bucket, the water we're flowing, um every every pound is is added against that that chassis and that design. So, it's on this truck in particular, it's very we have to be very mindful of of every pound we add to it. >> Got it. Okay. >> I think it was an awesome question. >> No, it is. It's a not a dumb question. Not at all. It's it's I I wish you could and maybe you know years from now that's something that the manufacturers can do but it's a these are very different u pieces of equipment. >> Yeah. >> The engineer told me that wasn't possible. So [laughter] >> torque. >> Could you just elaborate a little bit on when you say it's difficult to do some of these things with the ladder? you know, again, obviously, I'd love for you guys to have no difficulties with with any of the jobs. Um, I think we're trying to balance what's difficult but doable versus, you know, what's impossible. And obviously, I don't want to put anybody at harm. Um, I also want to be conscientious about spending $2 million if I hate to say it, but if it's going to be a one ina million chance that we're, you know, missing out on by by not making this $2 million purchase, I guess you can just elaborate a little bit on when you say it's difficult. Um, does that mean impossible? Does that mean I I guess yeah that a little >> our our department operations just have changed significantly since 2013. Um 2013 when this original truck was specked um the highest building in town was High Point Surgery Center. Um two stairwells and three stories and that was it. Um we're seeing bigger and bigger buildings. You know, I I know we have planning requirements, but it won't be I wouldn't be surprised if we see start seeing more that's taller than than the Dorian, right? Three, four stories on top. And I think you're already seeing in Oakdale with seven, eight story buildings, right? um we've been able to utilize this truck um in in various ways, but it it when it when it comes time to to put that aerial up and we have to use our master stream to try to get on top of a fire um most of our homes I can't reach the peak um just because it is short and the setback and and how you lay out a scene um we're it so what happens then is like >> and that's that's for >> single family single family house fire I We've got plenty of spots in town that I I know in Hidden Bay, Deer Pond, I, you know, with the tree coverage and all that that a ladder truck isn't going to be able to even go up in the air, right? Um, but the majority of our city, um, we're we're just so maxed out on that height, little blue stem, that's when we had to bring in an excavator and tear down most of the house just to put the fire up. Um, if we would have been able to get over that peak with a longer ladder, then we're able to do our hopefully firefighting operations a little more differently and a little more successful um without creating, you know, just a complete tear down in the moment. Um, you know, regardless if if if this project doesn't move forward, you know, we'll we'll come back in 2032 and and ask for an updated replacement at that time. And, you know, truck costs we've all seen are are going through the roof and >> yeah, >> this $2 million ask is, you know, who knows what. I mean, PICE has a pretty good uh >> every quarter their prices go up one and a half%. And they're very clear about that, you know. So, I mean, um, looking at where we're at operationally, where our future holds, and how long it does take for this, um, you know, the the five-year bump up, it I hope isn't too much of an ask, but, you know, just trying to trying to be mindful of where we're at with our operations. >> Yeah, I think that's a tough part for me, too, is, you know, when it's time to purchase the new one, like this is obviously the the step we need to take is going from the 78 to the 100 foot ladder. Unfortunately, it wasn't done previously, you know, because I'd rather be at a point right now where we're having the conversation of let's go back and get this refurbished to last another 10 to 15 years, right? And now we're put in the situation where we've owned the truck for not even for 15 years and we're having to talk about completely replacing it. And I think that's where I'm that's where I'm struggling with this a little bit is [snorts] are we able to stick to the timeline of what was expected um when this truck was purchased a little bit better? Do the risks outweigh the costs there? And I guess that's where I'm just struggling a little bit because obviously the risk that we're talking about here is pretty significant risk. And so I don't want to take it lightly. Um, I'm just I'm struggling with that a little bit. >> Well, to spin off that a little bit, too. Is the 100 foot ladder going to be obsolete in 15 years? Should we do a even a longer ladder so we're covered at that 30-year mark or that's too much longer than that? >> That's it right now. There's there's a few other types of trucks that are out there. Got it. That are a little longer. [clears throat] There's a 115 foot that >> one has 137 foot ladder. It's the biggest one in the United States. >> They're very Yeah. And they're but they're [snorts] a very unique manufacturer. It's a It's a unique piece of equipment. And frankly, I don't [clears throat] even want to know how much those things cost. So, I wouldn't come to you guys. But I I just >> just making sure the 100 foot is actually going to be sufficient for what you >> I I've been in the fire service for 22 years and the 100 foot aerial has been kind of the king for that whole time. Engineering wise, I think that's just where they max out. I think part of the constraints previously were the size of the uh garage. You know, they added on to the old firehouse to be able to buy the last flatter truck to put in there. And I would assume that this suspect out that we wouldn't have any problems with with with what's [snorts] being asked. So, um end of the you know, it's been 13 years. So, it'll probably be if it's two and a half year build, you're looking at it being 16 years of service before the new one comes into play. I was a little uh surprised to see that the sale price would only bring in about 300,000 on that. >> That's just my best guess. I >> it again, it's really hard to go on Yeah. >> the used market and try to find an apples for apples comparison. Well, >> especially three years from now. Right. The feedback that I've gotten from our sales side of that is when I asked the question is it's the right color combination. Thankfully, we don't have yellow fire trucks. Those are tougher to sell. Um, it's the right color combination. Hey, we're it's that's just the the world we're in. The [laughter] fire name. >> No. Um, but we we do our best to maintain it and it it should be very desirable on on the used market. Um, but I don't I don't know what that looks like and I I wouldn't know until we actually >> it's hard to [clears throat] imagine. >> So, what would be the cash flow on this? I mean, would you have to have the $2 million [clears throat] up front to place the order? >> There's there's no money down up front with Rosenbower. It's the same as our similar builds. Um once the chassis arrives to the plant, um we make a payment and we actually get a a a discount because we're paying for that portion um at that time. And then when the the aerial >> the ladder portion arrives at the at the main plant, um there's another payment made and then we also get because we're paying for it at that time, there is another discount at that time that um is available to us. So, we're not talking about spending $2 million in January. We're talking about spending it over the next three years. >> No, frankly. Um I I believe the the chassis would actually probably show up at the plant 2028. We'd be making payments in 28 and 29. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Two payments probably in 28 or depending on how things felt, one payment in 28, two in 29. Aerial and final final payment. So you mentioned uh one of the [cough] half percent per quarter increase >> that was that was another manufacturer that's Pierce they again everyone's pricing is a little different >> but if but let's say you had a a 1% per quarter increase you know whatever um did you math out what that cost would make similar vehicle in five years of the current CIP you know what I mean >> I I haven't It's over 100 it's over 100,000 a year on a 1.9 million. >> Okay. >> And and again the even even in just the past year I mean again I I came into this last year at 2.2 million and when we started seeing numbers back like obviously there's been a lot of push back to the fire truck manufacturer saying >> why is why are they so expensive? Why is it taking so long? >> They're all making improvements and and trying to show that they're improving on that. Um I I just don't know what the market's going to do in three years because frankly I didn't know what it was going to do, you know, in the past year. Um and just what we've seen with our trucks over the past couple like I'm only going to anticipate it's going to get more. >> Sure. >> You put in this discussion of a midcycle refurbishment at 15. What does that look like and what's the cost for that and how do we then prep that cost? I I really do look at again I I don't see in my opinion I don't know what else we're going to really add to a ladder truck. Okay. One of the newest things that we we didn't look at from Rosenbower as an articulating end to the the boom. It's it's a great feature. It's new. I just I personally am a little leer of that until they get a few more years of maintenance on them on what that looks like. Um, I really think that this truck is a 20 to 30 year truck. Uh, we maintain our trucks well. We train our staff to use them properly. And I I would hope that a truck like this can last us a long time. Um, because 100 ft nothing. I don't really anticipate that changing a whole lot in this truck's lifetime. Um, I think we would be able to at year 15, 15 to 20, get it back in the manufacturer's hand, swap out hydraulic hoses, go through the the truck, see what needs to be updated, repaired, replaced, just to save on the wear and tear, and go that buys us another 10 years, and maybe it's, you know, 150,000. >> If the build out is over two to three years, what's a refurbishment take? Um, we I'm trying to think you could probably plan that for about a sixmonth period of time, you know, depending on depending on what you're going to do. Um, you know, some departments go through and take every light out, every, you know, foot of cabling and wiring and and redo it all. And it's a it's a it's a massive overhaul. Maybe our truck doesn't need that much. And and you know, again, it's just >> I I would anticipate, you know, being without a truck if if that was something to happen down the road, >> six to eight months. >> You know, I I think >> What do you do? Do you rent a >> There's there's always I >> I don't want to say there's always, but there there is the possibility of getting our hands on another demo truck to to fill that need. Um >> or that's like what would have to happen during a refurbishment? he'd have to >> we we we had a unique issue here in the county a few months ago where um Still Water was getting some welds replaced. Um they actually had to wait for a whole new fly section on their their ladder. They were out a few months. Um Oakdale's ladder truck was out for a few months for some painting. You know, like it can take some time. we can rely on our neighbors, but then sometimes like we experienced here in this county a few months ago, there was there they weren't available from our neighbors. So, um, you know, if if that was the route we were going, I mean, I I would work really hard to try to see what's available to us for a demo unit or some sort of rental and and if the manufacturer can get their hands on something that was turned in and or that they've got a demo stock that they can get us for for the period of time, um, kind of put some pressure on them to get creative too to try to help >> because a lot is the refurbishment a lot of times used for fire departments where they maybe have two ladder trucks and so >> not necessarily. Clearly, um it's just a way to extend the life of them, you know. I I think where we're at with some of these newer modern trucks, I think that's the way to go when you look at um trying to extend the life of them, right? And and a truck like this that isn't seeing the daily abuse um and wear and tear. I mean, an example I I think I sent Matt on one of his questions today was um our ladder truck at 2014 has basically the same mileage and engine hours as our duty engine that we got three years ago, you know, so that duty engine's out on the road all the time. You know, we had to use our ladder truck for two years as kind of the first few until we got that truck in. Um, but the ladder truck doesn't have the daily wear and tear as as other trucks do. [snorts] Um, so not and and I personally haven't gone through a, you know, a full refurbishment of a of an aerial truck to see what it would entail, but I guess it all depends on at that point 15 years from now what that or 17 years from now potentially what that truck has gone through and experienced in its its life. >> But either way, it's a common practice. It's a all aloc cart type thing we can consider down the road. >> Look to see what it needed and and how we could extend that life. I think that's definitely viable for a piece of equipment like this. There there are definitely apartments departments around here that um you know have a have an engine like ours and every five years that new enginees coming. They spends five years on the front line, five years as a reserve, five years as a backup and then it's gone. you know, um I don't see us needing to get to that route, but I mean, wear and tear on vehicles is just it's a it's a different animal. So, >> where's where's the 15 years um come from as far as for that kind of suggested replacement time frame or refurbish? I think I saw it. Was it the >> It comes from NFPA. NFPA is just a set of uh guidelines and standards that we aren't held by law to to follow them, but um they are kind of the they are the standard that you're we're trying to follow the best we can. It is a guideline. Um 15 years for us is totally different than 15 years for St. Paul. >> Change numbers. >> Yeah. >> Completely. There's a lot of factors that come into that. I I wouldn't sit here and say at every 15 years that it's got to be replaced, but you know, we've been doing pretty good with our the grow pricement at 20 years on on most of our big frontline apparatus and and going, "Okay, what's the condition at 20 years?" And and frankly, unfortunately, we just fire trucks get beat up. We we use them hard. They are not like you're, you know, pulling out of your garage at home and, you know, the the maintenance on them is different and just they take a lot of abuse and And I we I can stand here and our staff do a great job trying to maintain them the best they can, but um they get beat up and that that impacts their their their the life of that apparatus. >> Fire trucks aren't included, if I'm seeing this right, in the in our current vehicle replacement purchasing policy. Does that sound right? We don't have any policy set from a city standpoint. >> I don't think they're in with the regular fleet. >> It's just the >> [snorts] >> It's a little different. >> So, I guess for tonight, I'm just looking for direction. if if I've given you enough information tonight to to come back to you in probably the first meeting in October to to review where we we where we've ended up as a truck committee um for this project and in the meantime if there's any other information that I need to get to you and um provide or spend more time discussing with the council >> guess just to clarify so you said with the quickest turnaround company with the quickest turnaround we'd be looking at Two and a half years was that >> probably two and a half years from from time of uh purchase order >> and then kind of on the the longer end. Four was it? >> And the P as far as for if we ended up going with the one that was four years out again from like the cash flow perspective, when would that first payment be due? Um if >> it was the fouryear out option >> there there are other every manufacturer's got a little something different. Um we could negotiate other price points depending on how much money we're going to pay them at either time of signature or time of chassis arrival. But they they all have some similar kind of discounting when when pieces arrive at the factory. And >> this number you put in here is accounting for some of those discounts. um the 1.9. >> Yeah, >> it does. There there there are some unknowns to that 1.9 when we're looking at the Rosenbower product. I'm still tweaking the the um the specification from them. We met them yesterday actually to kind of dial that in. >> Um and waiting on staff to give me back kind of here's where we at are at for equipment. The nice thing is is our I don't believe our equipment needs are going to be we're not upfitting a brand new truck from from the ground up. We're taking 85% of the stuff off this one. This truck gives us a little more. The tandem axle gives us a little more space. Not that we're filling up all the space in the truck from day one, but it does down the road give us the the ability to add some more equipment down the road when when the time is right or what the if the department deems it necessary later. >> It's a big number. >> It is. And I wanted to make sure that we talk about it now that I you know, it's not just some pretend number out there. These are, you know, we're getting it down as best we can. >> Go ahead. >> I u obviously this is something that needs to happen. It's just it's the time frame for me again is where I'm kind of struggling where you know when we I would have loved to see this be more of a 25 year 25 year item versus a, you know, even if it was at the the four-year out point here where it's a 16 year old truck. Um, I just I think this is something we really need to be paying attention to. So, I guess, you know, if this is the direction we need to go, um, I guess I would just push for being able to get it signed as soon as possible, but delivered as late as possible, I guess, would be and payment as late as possible would be my [snorts] preferred direction. We're going to go this way because I think we I I I >> I understand there's difficulties, but I I don't I I guess from what I've seen so far and from what we've been told, I just I don't think the risks outweigh the cost of waiting maybe two to three more years and putting this maybe closer to where it was originally expected in the CIP. >> Well, we're planning on in the 2029 CIP was planned to spend the 2.2 2 million in 2029. And so basically what we're doing, we're accelerating the some of the spending by a little bit. >> That's basically what we're talking about. >> Well, because you have some payment for the chassis in 27 >> more 28 >> 28. >> So then 29 is where your [clears throat] cost was, but we had it in the CIP for 29. >> Yeah, we had in the CIP for 29 is what it says here. >> Is that right? that that's what we moved we moved it up last year >> five years >> to the >> the 2.2 2 we moved up and we we did spread it out over >> it was >> it was put in there as 2829 costs LA in last year's CIP and that's what we've continued with >> so far in this year's CIP >> so >> we've just tweaked those numbers down now that we have a different cost >> from that standpoint then it's not a change from what we looked at in the CIP from last year really >> no it's not is what I'm understanding I mean did you do any sort of financial how that impacts the city financially. Uh based on the timeline, I'm not >> we do we do a cash flow when we're doing the CIP. Um we work within our software to figure out what the cash needs are within that fund. And so I do have planned to interfund loans. So we would pick a fund that is sitting better than others and we would just borrow money from ourselves and then the um vehicle fund levies would pay that back over time. >> Okay. >> That's just I mean I don't really see as much of a change from what we had originally planned. >> I I guess maybe my thoughts still though is was the original plan right >> in the sense of do was it needed in 2029 or could it have been pushed out to 2031? 2032 and I that and again I don't know what the right answer is there. That's why I'm trying to figure out the risk cost analysis here of what is right. Again, when we buy these trucks in the first place, you're expecting 25 years is what we're 25 to 30 years. And so hearing that we're only getting 15 out of it is is challenging to me. >> Something we've already when we approve that budget, you [clears throat] know, CIP with that in there, we kind of advise the department to go ahead and get plan on that. I'll say I begrudgingly approved it. I think I was on that side of it. >> I understand that. And I and I >> say you were me. [laughter] >> No. And I I understand that. I just kind of I I'm looking at my role as fire chief and looking at our operations and what's what we need to do. >> I don't know what the I don't know what the expected life was for the current ladder truck when it was purchased because I wasn't involved in that discussion. um you know uh maybe it was 15 20 years I don't know >> that's a good point I guess I don't know either yeah I think the important question is whether it was 15 or 20 or 520 you know we need this vehicle for the for the good of our city and our department it was already in the CIP we're not you know I think we're beating something we already talked about several times and cash flow doesn't seem to be a huge issue on it because we'll spend a little bit early in 2028 but [clears throat] I think we can make it >> well and really what would be the benefit of pushing it out two years to 2031 >> well it it's this is where I think it's not if we look at one specific item that can always be the argument but when we move things forward continuously or if we say hey like we could make every single vehicle last one year longer. We can make every single road last one year longer before we have to do the replacement. That's where it adds up. And that's that's my point is yes, when we look at any individual item, it it seems negligible. [snorts] >> But I think we need to have a mindset shift of >> how do we in multiple projects extend it just slightly? That that's my issue with this is like I get that argument but my counterargument is that's a pattern that we're following and when we follow that pattern where we replace things a year earlier than they need to when we could actually maybe take it a year longer >> over time that really adds up. >> My only push back on that is it's such a such a [clears throat] large expense that it goes up 1.5% every quarter. Jeff you said it goes up >> 100,000 a year. >> 100,000 a year. So, we're adding $200,000 to it just because we wanted to wait and extend it a couple more years. That's personally why I would be in in [clears throat] favor of just >> it's in the CIP was get it done. >> How long how you said you've had to replace the brakes twice? >> We've had a [clears throat] deal with this single. We've done it twice in a year and a year. That is abnormal. Yeah. >> What does that cost? >> Seven grand. >> Seven grand a time >> and a lot of the the biggest piece to our maintenance costs is the labor involved with working on a large [snorts] scale and that's just kind of the downfall not having our own city mechanic where you know we kind of share some of those costs it's the labor cost we have to pay you [snorts] know >> yeah it's we do as much as we can in house can't do brakes on a on a fire truck >> I just did I just did brakes on a tire [laughter] a month ago >> yeah I don't know if the staff trust you to change >> tires I just replaced. >> Yeah, >> that's slightly more. >> I don't think chief's going to trust you on that one. >> Again, we have in the 2029 CIP. We approved that. We're talking about spending a little bit of money in 2028. So, we can actually get it in 2029 or probably 2030 depending on how long it takes, 30 to 36 months. >> And you've got that covered with an interdep department loan. So, it's really already accounted for financially. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I mean the only two the only two things I have is I agree with Matt in terms of at the macro level I do want us to be reviewing our policies whether it's this fall this winter next whenever it is how can we start extending whether it's our midsubishes whether it's our public works uh equipment because yes it does add up when things are purchased earlier and earlier in this specific case I will then do the opposite side of the coin were replacing something that shouldn't have been purchased. >> Well, >> it was the wrong one that was purchased to begin with >> at the time, right? It might have been the right thing to purchase. >> Correct. >> So, you can't say it was >> they're off they're off by a year. If they had purchased it a year later when the lawsuit was lost, hopefully they would have done something different. So, it was 90% wrong. So, I guess I haven't heard of other instances where we're pushing fleet purchases a year early. >> Are we? I mean, >> we've been extending like the um building vehicles we've they were originally in the plan for 5 years. We've pushed them down to what seven and eight. >> That's right. I think that's something we need to review. I think the vehicle replacement policy, >> it was based off of a mindot study on four vehicles that are probably not relevant to a lot of the vehicles that were using that were not we're basing vehicles that are totally different than the vehicles that were in that report. And I think you know that report has a calculation that was used then at a bare minimum I think we should be using that calculation that was in that report to show that you know even though the report suggests I I don't even think the report suggested the years that we have in ours it's I don't know where the connection is on >> but to your point what I just heard is they're being pushed to seven and eight years instead of the five. >> So that's >> which is great. I don't know what but I don't know what the decision is for that. Right. whenever I see items come up on the CIP, it says, "Hey, you know, the the this is being brought up because of it's met the years of expected in the the policy, right?" And that's what I see. >> Yeah. >> And so if if we're going to be presented with with that information, >> I want to make sure then that that data is really relevant to the vehicles that we're applying it to. when I've worked with fleet managers previously that probably have larger fleets than we have and maybe the fleet manager at the sheriff's department or the county would have a better idea but you know things that go into it are your mileage your maintenance your repairs um as well as the resale value at auction level right so once you hit a certain level diminishing returns on it gets more exponential right the later it goes so there is that sweet spot I'm not saying I'm not saying five years is the right number I'm maybe it's 10 years I don't know based on the mileage that we put in the building >> for example like if you throw the fire truck into it it says you should never sell it basically >> right if you put into the I don't know if I'm saying the term right the >> stochastic method that they use it says you should never sell The what? >> I don't said probably saying it wrong, but the stochastic >> stochastic. >> I'm probably saying it wrong. >> Are you being sarcastic? >> No, I'm being serious. The equation that >> that's the equation that they [clears throat] use in it. And >> well, it goes again to there's different methods that are used by different >> I guess I'm agreeing with you. >> You know, I'm like, yeah, I don't know what that number is. Thank you. >> Um, mayor and council, I might propose that >> stoastic, they say, right? >> Staff can take a look at the vehicle replacement policy, but >> Excuse me. Can you speak up, please? >> Um, staff can look at the vehicle replacement policy, but for a timeline on that, I would ask that we can take a look at it next year. Yeah. >> Due to our time, you know, budgeting and all that. So, we have it on the list. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I should have ran again. You should have. >> You really wouldn't have had to work that hard. either one of you guys. >> All right. >> Do you have your feedback? >> Thank you. >> Sorry, mayor. >> Point of personal privilege. >> I hydrated really well. >> Yes. Okay. Point point of privilege. We'll take a you know, >> five, six minute break here. >> A t-shirt. [laughter] Been a while. >> Oh yeah. >> And there's a process you use when the opposition to replace the vehicle. It's just been a while since I did it. You know, our guy did that. You know, sheriff's >> [snorts] >> Charles said so. You are going to school. >> What the mayor says go. >> Yes. >> Sounds good. >> 10 years ahead already. Sometimes we snowb blowing sho. >> It was nice to see 36 come back. cuz it's not it's not just crap dirt like where did you get bring it in, you know, >> because you got to do it from I mean, look at an aerial You know, Jeff, there's like there's time lapse cameras on the county's website you can watch. >> I think it's or something. >> I want to see that in my truck. If you're in your truck, [snorts] >> yeah, I wonder if that thing has a way of like >> picking up a signal or something. >> I was on my phone. Well, we got to see >> we got a video of you. But what if your phone is below window height back up north looking at the shifter down? >> Yeah. >> Jump back into the meeting here. Um the item number four on our agenda is draft 2027 budget and levy and ongoing strategic financial planning. >> Thank you. >> A lot to say. [laughter] >> Thank you, Mayor Councel. Um so our discussion topics as you mentioned are um we're going to just touch on our strategic financial planning. um discuss the 27 budgets, draft budgets, and then of course the 2027 proposed levy. Um I'm going to I assume everybody read their packets and and got to the punchline at the end, which is the levy, [laughter] >> which is the the levy increase. So, um I just want to point out that this discussion is a starting point. Um everything's, you know, we essentially kind of put together all our numbers. We plug in our our strategic planning numbers that we've been working on for the capital stuff and and so we're we're bringing to you our our starting point. Um we are always incorporating new information in our strategic financial planning. Um, we're going to try and nail that down um next month so that I have it ready to to send to the um rating agency for our bond rating. Um, but there's a lot of kind of moving parts. Um, I also wanted to just mention um, one thing that I didn't really put in my my packet, but just wanted to kind of drop it into the conversation is that one of the things I really dislike about um, when we pay so much attention to the levy increase is that that lens presumes that where we are today is the correct baseline. And so I just want us to kind of think about as we're reviewing this um and remember that we are in a strategic mode. We're trying to figure out what we should be at. Um obviously we can't fix what happened um in years past, but we can um take the responsibility of of getting us to the [snorts] a better position um today while we are while we are in our chairs. So um okay. So, object objectives um learn about some of the proposed changes to operations in the budget for the next fiscal year. Um kind of gauge how that budget and the levy changes fit into our high level and long-term goals and then provide staff direction for making written revisions in preparation for adoption of the preliminary levy in September. That levy, as a reminder, um can be uh decreased. it cannot be increased before our final adoption and certification in December. Um I put in a slide uh with a summary of the core strategies and strategic objectives that were adopted back in um early 2025 for our two-year strategic plan. I'm not going to run through all of those, but and then just kind of pointing out again how our um short-term goals uh how how our short short-term goals affect the budget and and pretty much everything gets affected um affects this budget. So, anything that we plan for in development, any of our financial strategies, capital planning, mostly um staffing levels, service delivery, facilities planning, all of it affects the budget. Um, hence, uh, my push for the strategic financial planning. So, what is strategic financial planning? I love my puzzle slides, so I'm going to go through those again. Um, it's essentially a plan. We're trying to set goals and implement strategies. I I we call it a plan. It's more of actually a guide and just kind of an informant. Um we want to see opportunities and problems well in advance. Um and we just want to be able to provide some financial insight into big decisions moving forward. So we essentially have all of these puzzle pieces that make up the city of Lake Elmo and we just have to figure out how they all fit together and and financially. So, we're taking a bunch of policies, practices, and making some assumptions. We're trying to project our money in, our money out, um, our cash, our debt, and we're trying to do this across the long term. Just a recap for our financial or our CIP discussions. Um so the these five items are our highlevel priorities and objectives that were drafted um that will be in uh the final strategic plan that I will bring forward. Um so during the CIP discussion we really talk a lot about AB and C. So, debt management, um, levy strategy and revenue stability, trying to get our, um, capital levies to a point that will support the capital purchases that we need to make in the future. Um, and then keeping, uh, a breast on our capital planning and infrastructure investment. Just a reminder also as far as those capital levies go, [clears throat] there has been uh very little capital levying um done in the past um which did lead us to the high debt levels that we have today. So we um had had a uh some transfers to the vehicle fund. We started having separate capital levies um in 2025. We just went from the 5-year CIP to the 10-year CIP two two year 2024. And so we're we're really catching up on on some of that capital stuff which leads into the the levy discussion really. Um again just recapping the capital and project levies. Okay. So, going into operations, um, same priorities. We're going to focus a little bit more on levy strategy and revenue stability. And this really is, um, hitting the budget sustainability and service levels a little bit more. [clears throat] So, levy strategy and revenue stability. Um, there's a chart. Uh, hold on. So, this is my projected tax levy. Um, there's still a lot of work to do here, but this is essentially what we're trying to do. We're trying to figure out what our levy looks like going forward. Um, and it's a challenge. So, we are a growing community. We have increasing needs. Um, we have development revenues right now, which are great. Um, but we are we will see those decrease. um and essentially cease by remind me >> 15 years. >> 15 years. So [clears throat] part of our strategy is trying to work our way toward what we believe is sort of this optimal or long-term [clears throat] tax levy rate range um for when that development stops. Um I have proposed as an option um to kind of meet that goal is to wean ourselves off of 70% of our building and planning revenues over the next um actually uh seven years I look back um by transferring that out of the general fund and supplementing with tax revenue. Um, this just kind of creates this buffer. Um, when we do start to lose that revenue, we would have that in a separate fund. And it also is just um sort of leading us up into that that later that the um levy that we expect without having it be a great big jump right at the end. Can >> I ask a question as you're presenting? I was thinking of it. So with the development revenues typically, so like if a there's a neighborhood developed, the development revenues come in the year that they're being built. So like let's say a house was finished being built in 2026, somebody buys that house. The development revenues were paid that year, but there would be no tax. They're taxed at a decreased rate in that first year typically on like a new house bill. So wouldn't Wouldn't the tax levy the next year say this? Wouldn't the revenue from their property tax make up for the development revenue [clears throat] from the year before? And if does that sorry may I didn't ask that very well in your as they're building their property they're building their house the development revenues are coming in but there's no tax revenue or if there is tax revenue it's significantly decreased because the value of the property is much less than when the house is there in development. And so the next year when that house is no longer paying the development revenue, but they're now paying a higher amount of tax, does that not offset? >> No, not nearly. The one one this the amount of uh the development revenue, so building um permits and planning fees amount to roughly 54,500. >> Home is about 4,000 for a permit and about 8,000 for sack and w. >> Sure. Okay. Yeah. So that makes I'm just trying to think back like when we purchased our house, I remember it was like a I mean it was a several thousand dollar difference between the first year what we got assessed versus the second year when we were just assessed on the property of the land. >> Yeah. >> So okay trying to understand >> are they actually a wash but it sounds like it's probably about maybe half. I think you would take almost eight years to recover that, but then also increase services, right? So, I don't know how you would factor that, but >> So, like the the amount of taxes that that house is paying >> from year one, let's say, is $1,000 and then they're they add the value of their house the second year. Now, they're paying $3,000 in taxes. So, they're paying $2,000 more in revenue or the city's getting $2,000 more in revenue than >> Well, the city's not getting a lot of it. >> That's true. go to county and >> county schools everything else city I know we're third 30% or I don't haven't looked at what percent we get but we're probably about 30% of the revenue coming to the city from property tax on a home >> okay sorry that was just >> sure um okay so that was part of that proposed strategy um one other >> something going back if we [clears throat] expect revenues to taper off after 10 to 15 year. Why are we set a fiveyear plan to get the revenues? >> It was actually seven. Sorry, I miss uh typed that in there. Um my thought was that if you can ease yourself into it, it's not such a big jump. And while also you're building sort of this this reserve fund that would then buffer um so you you could essentially inject money back into the fund to buffer operations while you figure out what um for instance so if you've got a if you're in a in a slowdown in 15 years and you go from let's you know let's say $500,000 down to $100,000 in permit revenue. Do you do you lay off a planner or a building official if you're not sure what's going to happen in the future? So then it's kind of this you get a you're you're buffering a little bit. >> Go ahead. >> You know, we had the development will substantially decrease in 10 to 15 years, but we have fiveear strategy to generate replacement revenue. That was my question. >> Sure. >> Maybe we could, you know, >> you say space it out. >> Speed it out a little. We we don't know really when the development will stop either, right? You know, >> right? >> That's that's the unknown. Is it 10 or 15? But >> things go to hell in a hand basket. It could be, you know, three. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> okay, I get your logic. >> Um, so now I forget where I was here. Um, service levels, operations. Um, again kind of the growing community is is always going to be one of our challenge and and so part of that is this question of what is our optimal service levels and how do we sort of try and level out our budgets um based on known and unknown changes in staffing. So just touching on on I mean you guys know kind of our current strategies are using professional studies to assist in determining appropriate staffing levels. So we just had the um study done for public works. Um we also backfill with contracted services in a number of areas and then hire internally um when there's a clear benefit to do so. Another [clears throat] one of our strategies is to gauge community satisfaction with current service levels. So we will be doing the or did the community survey? Not yet. We will be doing the community survey. Um to just give us feedback like is there room for growth or or are we doing well? Can we cut whatever. Um and then just to better understand the cost of service. Um our new software is allowing us to do much more detailed budgeting within that. Um provides easier access to financial information to um staff. Um we are estimating future operating costs, but it's a very difficult process to do a really long term. So I've I have some assumptions. Um but we would have to do um you know like the fire study that you had mentioned um would give some some intel as far as what service levels in the future might be. [clears throat] So again productive tax levies I put this in there. However, we know there's a lot of work to be done um to better understand the long-term impacts on the general levy. Um we feel like we've got um our capital levies are getting you like we're really starting to dial those in pretty well. Um but the the general levy is definitely something that we will be working more on. Um so the point of this whole that first part of this discussion is to remind you that we are strategically thinking about all of this stuff um long term um instead of just you know this this year-to-year change. So are there any questions or feedback at this point? Checkpoint one. Well, I I thought I think that's a good point too of what you were bringing up of if the revenues are dropping for the services, right? Those service revenues are are intended to cover the cost of the employee that's doing those services. Is correct? Right. When we the idea of >> charging for a permit is to charge for that time that it requires our staff to do that. And so if we're not bringing in those revenue, then what is that staff doing? You know, I guess if we get to that point, I guess my question is is that factored into [snorts] once that revenue decrease drops because of decreased development, are we factoring into that? That is probably going to be a time where we do have to look at changing staffing levels or is that not factored into these long-term >> into the long-term tax levies? No, I haven't gotten that. uh we haven't been able to to dial in that much of the change in staffing relative to uh uh that that type of stuff. So I would say the those are the part of this this iterative process with the strategic financial um planning that we will be doing this is essentially a living document. The more information that we get we will attempt to plug in. I mean, I personally think that would be something very worthwhile including into the into the plan. >> Is that something we can find out from other cities where we know there are first ring suburbs especially where the their growth slowed? It might have been the 80s, might have been in the 90s and those revenues did stop. How how did that impact the work demands especially for the the >> inspectors? M >> um cuz certain inspections will always there will always be deck permits. >> Uh there will always be basement permits, but for new construction for those things, obviously the the demand will go down. I just be curious like to that point, how can we utilize that to add to the workload on the projections, but that's a pretty big, you know, between compensation and full-time salaries might be 75 to 100k a year 10 years from now for position. I mean, we we've talked about a little bit. I mean, we talked about um you know, reduction of an inspector just looking at options and also when it comes to these developments, you're looking at you know, a lot of the developments are being processed by um you know, consultant services, Bolton Bank, planning on the planning side. So, I would assume that would just go away because we wouldn't need it. So, that's kind of cost savings right there. That's substantial. Um, so I mean we're pretty I wouldn't say short staff, but if you start looking like longterm at a city that's 25,000, we, you know, don't have a lot of staff. So you need people there just to be able to process conditional uses and things that come in. But from the building side, obviously we want to stay with the building official inspector because when we didn't have that and we were consulting that out, it was a substantial amount of money to go outside. So, I mean, that's kind of where I'm at thinking about it, and we can definitely look into it more and talk about it more, but >> I more because I mean, otherwise, we're taxing people now for something that they may not need to pay for that may not need to be paid for in 15 years from now. >> But again, that's without it would be worth knowing more information of if we ended up contracting that out because there's so little compared to what there is now at the development. And I don't know what that is, but I think it' be worth knowing. So, in the my first term, we didn't have a building uh official and we were hiring out a consultant to do that. When you looked at the price of the consultant [snorts] versus having somebody on staff that did that, it was uh three FTEES >> that we could absorb for that cost of the consultant. So the press was to make sure we got somebody on staff to do that so we could shed that >> extra work. And so the >> I think what a lot of organizations or agencies struggle with, right, is you have you have high points and low points and we'll probably experience those. So you want to right level your staff for that median. you use the consultants in the private sector at the high points so that hopefully when it goes down you're you know you're still in that right size [clears throat] and it's it's it's kind of a guessing game at that point because you don't know what's going to happen the next year. But certainly at some point >> we should be at an area where it's more standard level inspections for decks, patios, pools, things of that nature. Right. And we we have a a a plan that's called our long you know our comprehensive plan. >> Yeah. >> I mean we put a lot of thought into it and that tells us what we anticipate for building. Granted is not etched in stone didn't come down from heaven but I mean if any financial plan we have our plan should all be consistent with one another, >> right? >> You know if our plan says we're going to build 50 houses a year for the next 10 years, then we ought to have a financial plan that supports that activity and [snorts] need and recognizes those revenues. Yeah. So, I think understanding what the staffing plan is for 15 years [clears throat] from now needs to coincide with what our strategic plan is. >> Exactly. They all got to fit together. Um I just I want to add on so slide number 11. Um it's just about the strategic goals and I just I'd really like to add into priority objective B expense stability as well. This is something that I've obviously harked on quite [clears throat] a bit. I feel like we spend a lot of our time talking about the revenue side um and and not enough of the expense and I [snorts] I I think part of that is human nature. We want to always be doing more and doing better. Um which is human nature, but I think the tough thing is with government that's not always necessarily what we're trying what we need to be doing if the services are good enough. And so I really would like to include expense stability in there. Maybe not expense stability, maybe that's not the right word. >> Was that indeed with budget sustainability? [clears throat] >> That's what I was trying to get to budget sustainability and service levels tying the budget to service levels which are always going to be dependent on the council that is elected. Right. And so, um, the the levy strategy and revenue stability is really about the money coming in. Um, and the budget of sustainability and service levels is about the money going out. So whether or not >> So maybe I just I'd like >> stability. So, so I I guess I would I would worry about the how someone is interpreting or how the strategy of expense stability is interpreted from a strategic standpoint because flatlining expenses isn't even it's not possible. >> I don't know how to put it. I just I'd like one of the objectives to be >> more thoughtfulness around decreasing expenses >> or more focus on the expense side of the ledger and how do we decrease expenses or how do we minimize the growth of increase. I I I just I think it has to be in there and I don't know budget sustainability. When I hear budget I'm thinking money in has to match money out is what I think. I've got um these are like the summary titles of the actual like there's more words behind these words. So maybe I'll just review those and see if we can I can see if that kind of comes together a little bit more >> because I just would like to set that direction I from council to staff to say that is a priority and that that is important because again I think a lot of times of of our fault we say hey we want to do these things and sometimes we need to be reminded that we don't just need to do more right do we need to go from a a one minute and 50cond response time per fire to 1 minute and 45 seconds. You know, if that's going to cost us $300,000 a year, again, is that necessary? Going from four minute to two minute was absolutely worth it, right? And so I just I want to I want to make sure that that is a priority that we're always weighing those expenses and trying to >> we talk about revenue stability a lot but I don't feel like we talk enough about keeping the expenses at a reason. >> Isn't that long-term fiscal health? >> I don't know what that could mean debt. >> Well no we have debt management and long-term fiscal health. mean long-term scope is is controlling expenses and you know and and managing revenue so you have a good you know fiscally healthy operation. >> I'd like to see the word expense in there. Maybe that's what it is. We have revenue. >> The addition would be that councelor her knows how to expense this time. to make the most out of my salary here. Minimize it right now. All right. Got lots more to go. You ready? Okay. Okay. So, 2027 budget. Um just kind of a recap of how we look at these. So [clears throat] we have we have the joy of working within fund accounting. Um so we have kind of two main focuses the governmental funds. Um for us in in this discussion this is the general levy which um takes into account the [clears throat] the general fund operations of 101 um the debt service funds and the capital funds. So the capital levies. We also have our proprietary funds. Um, so our water, sewer, and storm water, and I have those broken up into operations, Ston capital projects. Um, so for the purposes of the next section, we're going to focus here [clears throat] on this side and largely on this little column here and largely on that little red spot right there. So that's our focus. Um so our budget process starts um fairly early in the year and even pri in prior years. I try to sort of summarize it as a thoughtful process. I think all of us are very responsible about how we deliver our our uh uh uh create our budgets. Um we draw on our knowledge and experience. We use existing city policy and practices. Um, we try to understand, you know, kind of what council's goals are. Um, and then making estimates for near future market changes. So, we're budgeting. Sometimes I'm developing budgets in, you know, May of 2026 for something that we're not going to pay for until November of 2027, for instance. So, um, so again, starting in the spring, we had some changes this year. We've had our new software. Kudos to all of our staff for learning um my new favorite thing in the world. So, um it I think it it made the process easier in some ways, but again, it's a a new um tool to to learn. We also are incorporating the strategic planning side of things and then also trying to um do a little bit more of the projecting of current year and amendments. So, we're looking at the first draft here tonight. We will adopt the preliminary levy in September. We will continue making minor revisions as we have them through the fall, including um some fairly major changes such as um open enrollment that happens in November. And um our insurance um what is that thing called that we just did? >> Appraisal. >> Appraisal um could change our insurance rates. And then we will adopt our final budget and levy in December and potentially be making amendments to the 27 um budget within 2027. So this is a breakdown of our general fund expenditures in 2026 for the adopted budget. So roughly a quarter in general government, roughly half in public safety, roughly a quarter in public works. Um, I will be bringing forward an amendment. Um, as I was going through, you know, the strate strategic um, financial process and then the new budgets, um, we're really going to try and and pull out some of the, um, general fund project expenses, um, uh, the 180 acres, the fire station, the comprehensive planning. it just really, you know, there are a bunch of um project type expenses that that sort of make um it difficult to compare yeartoear. So [clears throat and cough] for 2027 requested um we had some pretty significant increases in fire and police. So that is bumping public safety up quite a bit. Um you can barely see the changes here, but I threw it in there. So this is comparing 26 budget, 26 amended and or projected and the 27. Um I just talked about this. Um so moving general fund special projects to a separate fund um for better year-to-year comparisons within department budgets. um the strategic plan. Um I would propose some transfers to those project and capital funds um to bring our general fund balance down. We were after the 2025 audit, we were sitting at 140%. So I'd like to move some of that into the capital funds. um decreasing expected building and planning revenues based on um some uh more updated uh projections from community development and then adjusting various other expenditures and revenues based on on some decisions that were made and and to reflect some actuals that we have. So for 2027, here's kind of our highle changes. Um we added some positions. So the three fire captains started in 2026 for half a year. So they will be a full year in 2027. So that will increase that budget. Um we added a new an additional fire uh excuse me public works uh fireworks I almost said public works lead um that is starting in 2026. Um and then we will have an additional public works operator proposed that would start in 2027. Um our salary and budget uh benefit assumptions are relatively the same as other years. So we assume a 3% [snorts] cola and calculate any um steps. We have the wage study that's been done that's sort of out there. Um you guys I believe will be talking about it next week. That's correct. >> In a closed session. So that is not included in the department. [clears throat] Oops. Can I have your battery your Do you have your power? Um so that's not included in the department. I I um created a contingency line for that specific study. So we added [snorts] that in. [clears throat] Um we added the potential for PTO and ESST payout. So, we have a policy wherein you can um have up to 40 hours of your PTO um cashed out into a u where does that go? The deferred comp >> or HSA 40 hours over the max carryover, >> right? And we had never budgeted for this in the past. We also, sorry, and the state also added the ESST policy. um we had never budgeted for these payouts in the past and and so there were um I I think a couple departments went over on on um wages for that reason. >> I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the acronym ESST and made time. >> Thank you. >> Yep. So um I added I added in some some budget for that. That does not guarantee that they will actually these people will actually take the payout. But I essentially kind of took the people that I knew typically would have a payout. Um we have uh usually fire has a hard time using up their PTO. Um so they do. And then [clears throat] some people that have just been here longer um and haven't managed to take a vacation this year. That's me. [laughter] Um so we we did add that in just to be a little bit more cautious with that. Um health insurance premiums. We have a tentative 20% and it sounds like that's pretty consistent with other cities and what our um uh insurance broker has stated as well. Um special projects again moving some of those to the 401 project fund. Some of our projects um that maybe we had planned for in 2026 won't all be done in 2026. And so that also will be part of the amendment kind of uh recognizing that we're not going to do these this year but but we're going to add it into 2027 instead. Um, we have some savings in IT hardware because we have fewer computers this year. And then again, we've got this insurance valuation process underway right now. So, we've tentatively added 15% for that. So, overall, >> what are things that uh impact our insurance valuation? >> Um, bu any building? >> Uh, what? Well, all >> buildings. They looked at every every single building we have and like all the wellhouses and Yep. >> and so like every single utility structure um >> was evaluated. >> So uh here [clears throat] so again I tried to show the budget as well as the projected and then 2027 requested the change from the projected and then the percent change. So, um we're looking at um total revenues next year of 10.2 million compared [clears throat] to expenses of 10 point just about 10.1 leaving us a net of 143. This is for that uh proposed um strategy to start moving the um building and planning revenues um for that purpose. So, we can always revise that. um also taking into account the transfer of um out of the general fund into some capital funds. So um okay so going into kind of these different segments. So general government covers um the mayor and council administration elections finance planning and engineering. Um, so we're looking at some changes. In 2026, we added the community event which had not been originally budgeted for. And then again moving some special projects. And then 2027 changes. Um, the council uh wage increase for the first time in 13 years. Um, and then proposed changes to a couple of planning positions have been pencileled in [snorts] for public safety. Um this includes police um prosecution is largely counterbalanced with um revenues in that segment. Um fire department building inspection falls under public safety technically have emergency communications and animal control. Um >> what is what is the emergency communications? Is that the radios and things like that [clears throat] chief? >> That's mainly our outdoor warning sirens. Okay. >> There's monitoring involved in that. The biggest increase for next year is um preventative maintenance for the nine siren sites. It's something we've been trying to manage our own [snorts] repairs, but we're we're kind of exceeding the scope of what we can do internally. >> Okay. >> Sounds like you need an engineer, electrical, anybody? >> Okay. So 26 adjustments include just moving some special projects to the 41 fund and then 27 changes. So the um uh Sheriff Star presented that information um second half of the implementation of the three fire captains and then some improved budgeting for the paid on call fire training hours. Um for public works uh we've got street and parks in the general fund. Um so the 26 adjustments are um some additional engineering uh and utility costs. Uh park donations were removed. We had a a park revenue and a park expenditure. It doesn't sound like either of those things are are happening. And then we are adding that lead position in 26. for 27. Again, the added public works operator. Um, uh, we've got some small equipment purchases. We're restocking salt. I did we didn't have much for salt purchases this year at all. So, 2027 is going to be a really significant increase >> up there because it been small amounts like 20 ton a year. and they had two sheds which they utilized and I'm trying to get down to this one shed. So, we're going to burn through what we have this year stock. >> Okay. [clears throat] Um field prices increasing. Um we added some engineering and then some park maintenance. Okay. So again, we've got our fund accounting our main purposes. I just wanted to mention that within public works, we've got the general fund department, streets and parks, but then public works also does uh water, sewer, and storm water. So, I wanted to just give a perspective of what that um sort of whole department as a whole looks like um adding in those departments. So, total of 5.6 million about an 10% increase. I will also mention um so that when we're looking at budgeting for staff time within public works um we budget using an allocation table and it's it's even by individual um but they actually book their hours um with the actual work that they do. So we we budget for one thing, but then there, you know, like if if there aren't any snowstorms and the street hours might be weighed lower than what we had budgeted for. So just as an as an FYI. So this is the kind of split when we do take into account public the utilities um as part of public works. So this is our all of our operations expenditures. And I should know this, but when public works staff is doing work on a water utility or a sewer utility, I assume we're drawing funds from the utilities to pay for this that specific salary time for that time spent. >> Yep. Because when they when they do their time payroll or time cards that's built to that be water, sewer, storm. >> So when they're filling that out on that device, that's that's the data source to make sure that it's differentiated correctly. >> Thank you. Yeah. Okay, so just as a recap, um I wanted to point out kind of some of the highest increases. Um sorry to pick on you yet again. Public safety, um 15% increase there. We've got public works 16%. Um we've added this contingency. Um so it sounds like that might be a little lower than what we had originally planned. So that might come down. Um our total change right now is at 1.4 million in in the um expenses. So roughly 16%. Um I also want to point out that we've got that net of uh 143,000. So if that um policy goes away then that would change as well. >> Question. >> Yeah. um is in the contingency seeing that in there in past budgets in 22 23 24 did we put in a specific contingency as a line item or was it just incorporated in budgets generally at the micro level? >> We had um we had a contingency line for a while and I and we never really use it. It's not you it's not somewhere that you actually like put an expense. So, I would say if we're using contingencies in the future, um this I don't want to confuse everyone too much, but um it could be for like um making sure that there's money in the budget and we just don't don't know where the the shift in cost is is going to be like so so if we had a contingency then we can kind of redirect that money to the based on the changes or the decisions that were made mid year. There's also the idea of having a contingency um for so if our uh fund balance was down closer to our policy 50 to 60%. Um but our revenue or our our expenses our budget for the next year is significantly higher than the current year because we're comparing our fund balance to the budget and that budget is increasing. you gota you have to make sure that [clears throat] your your fund balance actually increases and the only way to do that is to make sure that you have um a surplus planned and you would do that kind of within that contingency line. It gets really kind of complicated >> I understand the purpose of contingency at the macro level and micro level. I guess I would be curious technically if you didn't have it you would just be depending upon the fund balance. Correct. >> Correct. And in this case, the 250 is 250 that's coming out of a levy. >> Yes. So 2 we plugged the 250 in here for specifically for the um wage study that we don't have any idea of what the I I don't have we didn't have the uh information in time and there's no easy way to plug it into the department budgets within. >> So in this case partial contingency is partial placeholder. It's it's definitely 100% placeholder this this particular contingency. So >> usually the confusing part is usually placeholders have just gone in >> to [clears throat] that department, right? Like I remember like we were talking [cough] might hire a another public works person. I feel like it just got put in right there. >> We just don't I don't have that I don't have that data. So we just got you just got the wage study information last week or whatever. So it just wasn't here in time in order to plug it into the departments themselves. So purely [snorts] a placeholder. As soon as we get direction from council about how you know what that is going to look like, we will plug it into the department. >> Study is just it's a study looking at how much everyone'sing. >> Sorry. The wage study is currently underway. This isn't a budgeting. This isn't budgeting for a study. Correct. >> This is the impact the impacts of. >> Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. So I would Jennifer could speak more to that if you need to know but >> we do expect that number towards >> I so and just because again maybe this will come back later but with with cola that's in addition to the steps that employees are getting on an annual basis. Correct. So makes $100,000 >> year two they're going to makeund whatever the step is difference plus an extra 3,000 based off of their $100,000 salary cost of living adjustment. So they're getting both of those increases every year. >> Correct. >> I would sure hope that the contingency is going to be significantly lower than considering we've been doing cola forever. I I it's too early. come back to this later, but I'm just going to say the hard thing. I think cola needs to be gone. >> This is what we're having the close session on next Tuesday. So, you will be getting information with the report results um probably tomorrow typically like how we try to send stuff out ahead of time to you, but it will be coming from Flare and Hood who did the study. So, it'll have all the details and then they'll present it next Tuesday. Okay. So, just keep this rolling. So, we have our expenses. We need to figure out now how we fund those expenses. So, it's kind of a recap on on where money comes from. So, we have our earned revenue, licenses and permits, charges for services, intergovernmental, and fines. And then our expenses less our earned revenue are the property taxes necessary to support our services. Here's a summary of all those segments. So we've got um all of those revenues planned their total and you can see the changes. So um a few sorry remind myself where what I did here. Okay. So this is how I usually present this [clears throat] with these these are essentially these segments that we use within um our accounting system but when I'm thinking of city um revenues it is largely between taxes building and planning revenues and then everything else um so I summarized that here um our other so everything else Um we tweaked just a few things. Um so revenues from see I already mentioned that we had a um payment in l of taxes payment um for a number of years. So this is the first uh final year in that. Um so that decreases other revenues. Um we if we transfer money we will uh out of the general fund we'll be decreasing um our investments earned in that fund and then also um Nina realized uh found that we were uh contributing the water tower rents into the general fund and they would be more appropriately um booked into the water fund. So we changed that as a practice. Okay. So just again pointing out taxes increasing um by that amount. We're going to get into the levy next. Any questions? um feedback on the 2027 budgets operations expenses largely. >> Yeah. I mean, it's safe to say at least half of the change is due to additional staffing between positions we approved for fire department, position we approved for public works, and then COLA. That that's basically over half of the change. Is that >> I I didn't do that exact math, but I will take your word for it if you if you put them together. But of I mean generally largely our significant changes in expenses are staff related because we're essentially a service industry. Um but we did have some public works had some equipment that you were purchasing in the salt th those actually added up to to some pretty significant numbers. [snorts] But we're also you know we're trying to shift some of the project stuff out of the the 101 um into the 401. So, it's we're trying to balance things out and and make it so that it's just year-to-year um expend normal expenditures in there. >> I mean, I'll my feedback I think I'm going to wait till checkpoint three is I think may just make more sense. >> Sure. I I guess maybe just the quick feedback I'd give at this point is if we're spending 23% more, what are residents getting? What benefit are they getting as a as a as a result of that 23% increase? And not it's rhetorical question, but I think that's something we just need to think about. the the employee costs that were put into budget for 2027 um make up about 56% of the increase. I'm an engineer. >> Thank you for doing the math, Nick. >> 56.07 for be exact, but that's you know over half of the costs are those added positions and the expected changes and insurance and all related to employees. I did add them up quick. There might be a one or two data entry, but I thought I checked. It's it's it's about at least 50%. >> Visually, it seemed at least 50. I was too lazy to do math. >> You don't know how. >> It's true. >> Okay. If there's nothing else, we'll get on to the levy. So we are focusing just very briefly on debt service and capital funds. We've talked about these quite a bit in our CIP discussions. This is a rundown of our debt service levies uh needed for the year. Actually stepping down a little bit because 2016 dropped off. Um we will be adding 2026A. There is some flexibility on how we structure that however. So, um, we've got some, uh, leeway there. And then the capital and project levies. Um, so again, these were new in 2025 and I'm trying to slowly ramp these up over time. So, and to get to this sort of, you know, quote unquote optimal uh, levy level, but but that is essentially a moving target in a growing community. So, um, starting this year with this idea of the 401 fund to take the these projects out of the general fund, um, we had not had a capital fund for public works buildings. Um so starting one of those we have our study center CIP planning for um any of the repairs and our large uh uh repairs and u maintenance on the $13 millionish dollar building that we just built. Um we have our park reserve knowing again that the um park dedication fund and is funded [snorts] specifically from development and if development ends how are we going to then replace our park equipment. We have our fire equipment and project fund which is um taking again taking some of the more project and and larger equipment purchases out of the general fund and and trying to level that out over time. Uh straight maintenance is uh our uh I'm losing my words now here. Milan overlays and crack seals. This is uh Jack had originally presented this I believe in 2023 at a cost of an or an average of $600,000 per year. I've been increasing it um a little bit to cover uh inflation. Infrastructure reserve is our main uh vehicle for decreasing our debt over time. Most of the debt that we've issued has been related to street projects and we can't decrease the debt without increasing our um cash contributions to those projects in the future. Vehicle and equipment fund for Dustin's truck. Um street lights we're starting. So, we have roughly $3 million in street lights in the city that we need to figure out how to replace. Um, we've got some time uh to kind of get that set up, but but that is planned to be around $25,000 per year. Um, crosswalk improvements is covering the the um program that was started this year on those. We're not really sure what that's going to look like long term, so I just kind of tossed a number at that for now. And then the ballpark fund is the um repaying the interfund loan that we um use to purchase the 76 acres for the potential ballpark. >> Should those years be 26 and 27? >> It should be 26 and 27. Thank you. Okay. Um so [clears throat] preliminary levy for discussion purposes. uh 13,916,38 increase of roughly 2.4 million which is uh roughly $33.92. I did um we did get the fiscal disparities um amount. It's just slightly over what I had penciled in. So we'll shave not even a one percentage point off of that. um number there. [snorts] the tax impact. Um so going from 29.77 to 33.9 roughly four and a quarter percentage points would be roughly $315 per year or about $25 per month for the median value home. Our median value home though, you have that listed that it's not 700,000, is it? >> No, it's 599. >> Yeah. So, it should be $264 increase. >> Nope. That would be if you on um So, when I look at this, I'm looking at the median value home change from 565 or 585 to 590. So, it goes essentially from this column down here, which is a $315 change. Got it. >> For tax rates relative to other cities, we are still going to be on the low end. Um we've started to do some research and get other people's uh sort of draft and proposed. So there are other cities. So this is all Washington County cities. I've also um been comparing us to these are the Washington County cities most comparable in population to Lake Elmo. Um we have gotten numbers from um just a few cities. So Forest Lake um and Mameidi are also looking at over 3 percentage point uh increases to their tax rate. Again, these are early numbers, so that could change. >> How is Hugo keeping theirs flat? >> That was my question when I saw that that because it >> Yeah, our local administrators meeting we the same question and it was um not not very easily explained. Um there's a lot of I can't speak for Hugo but we were all wondering the same thing. >> Okay. >> I would note >> but to be clear, Grant shouldn't be a comparison city. >> They're way down here, right? >> Yeah. I mean >> my I think my window for population is something like 5,000 up to 20,000. >> They don't they don't have any of the services. They don't have any of the water sewer. >> Yeah. >> Scrub that. >> Um [snorts] just a note on tax rate. So tax rate is just one measurement we use for comparison. It definitely does not tell the whole story. Some of the reasons our rates are low is because we have high property values. Um, we have development revenues offsetting some of our expenses. Um, and we have not been uh levying significantly for future CIP projects in the past. Um, so when we're comparing to these other cities, we don't really know exactly what their practices are. I don't know what their capital levies look like. I don't know what their debt levies look like. So it's just, you know, a very sort of high level comparison. Um so next steps follow-up workshop if if significant changes or additional discussion are needed. Um we again have the have to adopt the preliminary levy in September. So our September 15th meeting um presumably um county uh notices get mailed out in early November. Um finetuning of budgets will occur between now and December. And then our truth and taxation hearing and final budget adoption is pencled in for December 15th. Checkpoint three. >> I had a crazy thought actually first as you're sitting here. Um, if we sell the old fire wall and park building, like $600,000 or something [clears throat] just I know we had lot going, but I mean I think our revenue would be about 600,000 if I remember rightly. >> So if we took and applied the 600,000, but I didn't reduce the capital le we're selling a capital asset. We're using revenue for the capital asset to fund future capital. we could reduce our tax levy by the amount of that sale be one way to get that down. I think you know that's just the ramblings of a previous engineer. >> Yeah. Then and that's definitely been um and I you know I try to use the information that I have at the moment. So we don't I don't know what exactly what that's going to be. So I haven't really plugged anything in. My recommendation or my plan had been to put it into a capital fund for sure and into one of the building funds. how much that actually decreases the levy because that's a one-time injection of funds kind of like the the general fund um transfers that I'm recommending. They'll go into the uh I think I had proposed you know for next year largely into the infrastructure fund but our long-term needs in the infrastructure fund are such that even that $2 million injection might not affect it significantly long term. Right. Yeah, my thought would help offset the increase needed because of the changes in personnel. >> It's just it's kind of a one-year gap. I'm still online with you and getting that long-term thing in place, but trying to get there without getting hung on December 15th as we go to the council chambers. >> Yeah. Yeah, you know, it's just a thought that we we have a unique a more unique situation in 2027 with with our adding our personnel and those big increases associated with that and that would offset that and help us get our levy down just a little bit. Needs a tax burden. >> Sure. >> I didn't talk about the 180 acre land, the 14 million, but >> let's deal with what we know. >> Yes. Just a thought. >> Well, okay. As far as for on slide 51, when we talk about we've not been levying significantly for future CIP projects, again, I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that we need to decrease our debt. It's it's at too high of a level. I think we need to be cautious about taxing people now for projects that are 10 years down the road where they may not benefit from those projects at all. I think this comes back to our discussion of when these projects are funded via taking debt. It's people are paying for that project now, but people who are going to benefit from it in the future are also going to be paying from it as we pay down that debt. And by taxing people now for projects in the future, people may never actually see those projects and they may not get the benefit. So I think again that doesn't mean we don't start working towards decreasing our debt and trying to start acrewing funds to help match what our um depreciation numbers are are looking like. I just I think at the rate we are trying to do it at I think it is I think it's unfair to our current tax base. [snorts] I think it's it's too quick. I think if these projects have to happen in the future, then they're paid for more so at that time versus us trying to prepay them 10 years in advance. I I I just wholeheartedly think we are going too aggressively with our capital funds with how we're trying to raise those. As far as for the the levy itself, that being part of it of where I think that levy could come down, we're asking for a 23% increase in our general or 23% increase. Our population increased by about six and a half percent. CPI was maybe two and a half to 3% over the past year. So if we're just going based off of that, I think something closer to a total levy amount of around like 12.5 million is something that I could I could pallet and understand the argument of we're a growing city and there's inflation. If those are the arguments we're going to move or that are going to be made for why this increase needs to happen, then I need to have a better explanation of why it needs to be up 23%. That would go more along with what I would make would make more sense to me based off our population growth, based off of the inflation over the last year. I again want the best services course that'd be great but that's only one part of the equation. We have to factor in what is the cost to that and is the cost worth the added benefit. I think our services are great in Lake Elmo. I'm an NF1 and if you know we get zero emails from residents saying that [clears throat] you know we have an issue with these tax increases I guess maybe it's just me then. I just my perspective is I think our city is already doing a great job. I think our services are really good. I think we need to understand that we don't need to be always aiming for more and more. And I think that is part of the reason that we're on this trajectory to spend more and more and be up to a 50% tax rate by 2050. And that 50% tax rate is going to continue to grow because of inflation than at that point. So where does it stop? [snorts] >> Is it spend more and more or is it save more and more? >> Sorry. >> I mean that's part of that's part of the equation. And I guess from my perspective when we start talking about projects in the future that people may not see them, they are using costs that were put into that project and the depreciation of that asset while they're there. And if you wait to pay for [clears throat] your water manes and your sewer main at the time they need to be done and you don't put money away for it, the debt load will become insurmountable. >> Can I just make a distinction here? >> Sure. >> So I am not saying we don't save and put away money. >> Yeah. >> I'm saying we don't need to do it as aggressively. >> Yep. >> Is my point. >> So it's the same argument from last year. Yes, I hear you. >> So questions, >> remember something for the assets, the street assets and assets that are part of the general fund. We don't have a depreciation charge as an operating expense. And so basically what these capital levies are that depreciation charge to put it aside for future improvements. In our water and sewer enterprise funds, we have a depreciation charge. Although we're not fully funding it where we're but we're working our way to getting there on like a 10-year plan, but streets, street lights, sidewalks, parks, there is no depreciation charge as an operating expense to pay for the cost of depreciate those assets out and recover the cost over it useful life. And so the capital levy is an attempt to do that. Does it have to be can we can we do slow it down or other? I'd be open to those suggestions, but I just want to bring that point forward. >> That is I am again I want to be very clear. I'm not asking that we don't try to cover some of these expenses. That's not I'm not saying let's completely get rid of the capital levies. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we've been shown the data that we can get to appropriate debt load over the next 15 years by decreasing how much we are putting or how much we're asking for in that capital le. We have been shown that we can responsibly move in the right direction without asking as much from our current residents. So, you're talking about [clears throat] raising it what about a million instead of the 2.4. >> Is that what your recommendation is? Just trying to clear up what you're recommending. >> Oh, as far as like Okay, I'll say this because I was expecting, you know, [clears throat] I I I want to see this number come down. So, I was expecting then the response from staff is going to be well, you know, what number do you want to see that come down to? >> Yeah. And I think you know okay how do I logically try to find that number of what seems like a reasonable increase given that we are a growing city given that >> when you say the number going down you're talking about the 13 >> the 13 total value 139 okay >> down to closer to 12.5. >> Okay. Yeah that's that's what I thought. Okay. >> Which would be a 9 and a half% increase >> instead of 21 >> instead of a 21% increase. It's still significantly more than you know how much inflation has occurred over the last year, but it does account for we're a growing city. >> So, question for staff because some of this cost are things that we've already approved or we've said through policy we agree with, but some of it is that discretionary thing of how fast we bring down the debt, right? Um on a different slide, you know, it's it's the projections of the debt over time. you know, it's over 50 million now and there's new debt and current debt and eventually by 2040, you know, it's a little over 10 million by 2050, obviously less than that. Is there because we do this with a fund balance that we have a policy recommendation, we should have it somewhere between X percent. Is there a practice at the municipal level as to what a reasonable debt load is from a percentage standpoint as in terms of percentage of revenue or size of city to say if the goal is 15 million then we can have that conversation. Well, when do we want when's our target? Is it 2020? Is it is it 2030? Is it 2050? I I'm just curious as to do we want to have that type of goal or do we just want to what what's your perspective on that? I >> I think it's definitely work worth looking at goals. I don't think we have enough information to make any type of to set any goal like that. So, one of the things that I keep coming that I try to keep in my mind is that we went from virtually no debt to $65 million in debt within like a f 10-year time frame. I think in like 2014 to 20 when was the this building was like 24ish or so. And so that's in today's dollars. [clears throat] It's going to take us at least 15 years to to get that debt load down. Um my concern is what happens to this city? If your children are gonna be here, you know, or whatever in 25 and 30 years, that's $65 million in work that was done or pl greater than that actually time value of money that becomes you want to do some math in your head, Nick? 150 million, >> 200 million. It's an astronomical number, right? And so my goal is, you know, maybe I'll get to retire by the time 2015 comes along, but like let's make sure that we're in a decent position so that when all of this brand new city has to get reconstructed, we aren't, you know, we haven't kicked [snorts] that can. We haven't they're not they're not starting from way back here. They're starting from somewhere somewhat reasonable. Yeah, I think I've looked at the fund balance too. One of the things that we have to remember is our fund balance is what's maintaining our credit rating right now because our liability per capita that because of the $60 million is way out of whack. And the fact that we have $20 million or so in fund balance is what's keeping our credit rating where it is. And we pay a significant penalty to have that credit rating drop. And so we're on this tight rope of how do we how do we get there? Um you know the positive is our debt levy's down a little bit. You know I mean we're going >> momentarily momentarily [laughter] we're going we're going in the right direction though. But a lot of our capital spending is for you fixing the streets that weren't done for so long or so far behind. And so, as we talked about it, trying to work this capital levy up, you know, over time and issuing less debt, it will pay long-term dividends to us because it we issue that you pay interest costs, which are a lot. And so, there's no right or wrong. I agree. I'd like to see the the amount come down. I I guess I just go back. I mean, here's where I'm having a hard time because we have received the information on this. I'm I I'm going to get the exact numbers wrong, but I I'm confident within a few years here of because I specifically asked about this last year. You know, you had the rate that you wanted to present as far as how quickly we increase our capital levies >> with the goal of getting to 20 million of debt, the 60 million down to 20 million. And with the numbers as presented versus taking a little bit more of a gradual approach that I had suggested, we'd achieved that same 20 million debt load was three to five years later. >> So instead of 10 years, it was 13 years we'd achieved that goal, >> right? So again, what I'm saying is I am okay with moving in the right direction, which I still think is aggressively moving in the right direction, but we can do it a little slower. I I just I again I I am not asking that we don't put any capital [clears throat] levy funds away and start saving now. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we don't need that much. we can move in the right direction responsibly for less. >> Would that be easy to model between now and then in terms of on this specific part because it's setting aside money into capital levies so that we issue less debt down the road. It's not the debt levy is would that be easier easy to model to that discussion from last year if we just continue it. It's just a bit more elongated to try to reduce maybe the capital levy is 2 million flat instead of 2.2 like it making it up maybe it's 1.8 maybe it's two would that be something that's easier to model or is that still >> we can we can certainly model it. So, the struggle the struggle with the some of this long-term um planning um is that we it's it's the longest term stuff that kind of is is the is the kind of the big kicker. So, I'm estimating, you know, after after our 10-year CIP, I have an estimate for local street projects, transportation projects, etc., right? based on whatever information I've been given, I plugged in a number. We don't know how accurate that is. And without doing a, you know, $40,000 study, we won't really know what that number should be. So, when we say we want to slow it down or we want to have a goal, we don't we don't have enough information to determine what that what that number, you know, 15 or 20 years will be. what we what we do know and what my goals with kind of the time frame that I've been working in is I I don't have I don't know that I have it. Can you pull up the um capital le down a little bit? Sorry. Go back up and over. What year is this? 2045. I'm already on a 20-year plan to get us to a number that I think is reasonable for an ongoing lit capital levy for the infrastructure fund. So, it sounds aggressive, but it's a 20-year plan already. And when we are talking about losing development revenues, which is going to we're going to lose the revenues, we're also going to [clears throat] lose all of our add, you know, we get new tax capacity every year, right? which helps our bring our tax rate down. >> And so pushing that off and again this is a policy. This is you guys. If that if that's what you guys want to do, that's I can certainly model that. We can plug that in and and we can implement whatever you need. I'm just saying like it's already a 20-year plan. And just a question um you know I've always thought that you know because we are such a residentialheavy city [clears throat] is there any way to have some speculation or is there any stratification where you can thereby say well a percentage of businesses will increase I mean it's totally speculative right so because that that changes that tax dynamic for residents, right? >> But there's no way to make some sort of Nostradomous guesstimation that >> I mean, >> yeah, there is there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, there is. >> Because we can I mean you're essentially taking so 180 acres for instance >> because not all the development will be just residential hopefully. So, right, >> we have information regarding the 180 acres, you know, to some degree, and you can plug in, you know, some new tax capacity to that and and and >> and see what that looks like. Because we have so much residential tax capacity, that additional commercial tax capacity won't have a significant impact on our on our tax rate. Even at what's the estimated because we had we had run the numbers >> 188 if you look along [clears throat] I 94. >> Yeah. >> At Manning and Keats, >> there's ton of capacity in that area. >> The other thing happens with the commercial development, it doesn't increase your operating expenses as rapidly, >> right? >> Yeah. you know, the cost per whatever is >> absolutely >> 30 cents on the dollar. >> Maybe a way to get to what you're talking about, councelor Hearn, is to, you know, we get we cross our fingers and say, well, let's hold our capital levy at a million780 and we sell the property for 600,000. That gets you down a million bucks in the levy >> with >> and slows [snorts] down the capital levy growth. But again, we got to get through this year where, you know, we have these increases in operating expenses that it's a blip and it's a needed blip, but it's a blip. >> Some of them are blips. Some of them we just don't know, right? Like we don't know what's going to happen to health insurance premiums. >> I expect the added positions. >> You know, that's >> when you're doing the projections, we're not including category five on the CIP plan, right? for priorities 1 2 3 4 and five. >> No, if they're in the CIP. >> They're in the CIP, but you're not including the projections, right? >> Um I'm not sure. I think they are in there. >> All right. >> But again, it's the >> I'm glad you brought that up. the I I might have done some preliminary looking I I'm not sure that taking them out would affect the the projections that much like because again this is like the some of these >> Can you double check that because I think we were I mean when you have time because that was something >> we discussed was taking category five off of the the CIP cost because it's it were included in that discussion as well. >> You know what? I'd have to go back and >> five for sure, four was discussed, but five for sure. >> But I mean that >> I know we did discuss it and because it it just some of it was >> it's a little nice to have speculative >> very speculative. >> Um so yeah >> because I don't want to levy something for something. >> You're doing it right now. You don't just But that's something we should look into. She's grinding over there. [laughter] I I'm all for doing whatever we can to get that done. I I guess I'd have to think about that a little bit more with that sale price and how that would I guess I'm not really sure what we would have done with those funds. I guess I'd have to think about that a little bit more, but I think that's intriging. if that's an option. >> Well, you you could take that fund and put it in. We don't know what it's going to be necessarily >> more than a dollar less than a million more than likely, right? So, >> um but it could supplant some of the the costs. >> And my point being we're selling a capital asset. We should put in the capital in the capital funds. That's be the right thing to do. And we and that would hopefully get us to where number that's more palatable for a tax increase. >> Just tell Jason to quit goofing off and get that thing signed >> October. >> I I don't I don't think it's Jason. >> I know that you guys got He hasn't said anything. So I have to give a little shot. [snorts] >> I guess as far as because I mean my thought were my thoughts were the capital levies. I thought was cut that by around 285,000 which would again would be using again just a madeup equation of I took what our population growth was and what our infl what the inflation was over the last year and increase it from what we um what we did for the capital levy last year. Um I said raise that by or cut it by 285,874 from what's proposed. So, it still would be an increase from 2026. It just wouldn't be as drastic of an increase. So, that's a spot we could save 285,000. Um, I think that idea of taking the funds from the sale again, putting that towards this to decrease this year's expense could be a good option. Um, I guess I don't know as far as with the deputies. I I I guess that was some interesting information tonight. I didn't understand the because it wasn't in the presentation as far as the the two staff issue. Um, so I was a little bit more hesitant at first. Um, I guess I don't know. It's I think I guess I don't know where we're at kind of that is an expense that everyone feels we need. Um, and then I I guess you know, mayor got to jump from me on it, but I I think the cola I have a little bit of an issue with. Um, >> you want the sugar? >> What's that? >> You want the sugar-free version? >> Yeah. Yeah, the diet cola. >> Want a diet cola? I um and I was trying to understand if it's just a small business thing because again, work and I've worked in larger healthcare and I've just never seen it. So, it's it's very foreign to me. I I don't again, maybe it is an industry standard thing. Even if it is an industry standard thing, I I just I disagree with it. I'd like it to be more market-based, merit-based on those annual increases, which I understand would require HR to do work to understand what those market rates are. I just think that's a better way to approach salaries versus a blanket. It goes up by 3% every single year in addition to your your automatic step increase. You know, at a bare minimum, if we're going to do the cola, then I think the step has to go away and has to be 100% based on I I I just I have an issue with that. Just the philosophy of it, I guess, is where I have an issue. >> Well, let's see what the compensation study says. [clears throat] I mean, that'll give us an indication of, you know, where where we're at relative to, you know, the market. And >> but the tough thing is if this is a if it's the normal thing in all governments, then all government agency uh positions are going up by 3% every year as a result of it. Right? So the whole industry is at that rate >> at so at the state level and Jeff you can correct me if I'm on ba off base is it's typically a negotiated with ask me who is like the largest union in the state I don't know how many employees they got but a ton >> well five figures >> they negotiate that I mean I worked at the state where sometime it was 0% when the when the economy was bad never really got over 3% um and And based on your, you know, your position and your years of service, there's this tiered structure that would so the cola, my understanding is to account for just basic inflation and then the step increases to it is to account for the merit or years of service or experience increase. >> Yes. So even if you let's say you take out the cola >> I would replace it is what I want to be >> well then you're looking at basis >> yeah then you you're looking at a >> it might be a little different but it's not going to be a lot different it's going to be in that 5% something like that. So >> yeah, there are there are years where because MATE is one of the larger ones asked me and this is for the state level but it's similar at the county level. It's different with school districts. They are very different. Um they negotiate and ask for a cola and ask that there be step increases. And depending upon the contract there might be both, there might be one, there might be neither. There have been times where there have been no steps and no cola the plenty years that happened a couple times >> because it's based upon legislative funding and those decisions and how it impacts. Um there's also in this in our contracts too there's a certain point where you might not have any additional steps which is a part of our >> top of the range >> and then the only thing you have is a cola and so that that is definitely a topic that comes up often in government is what do you do then for the positions where they're they're doing their job they're excellent and there's no more vertical movement for them unless they leave the organization >> market rate adjustment >> the cola yeah >> well >> well it's different it's not just saying a blanket, hey, it's going to be 3% every year. It's what does the market what is the market willing to pay for this? >> Correct. Yeah. And sometimes the at the state level and also at the county level, the cola is >> it's not a straight thing every year. It'll be negotiated based upon what inflation is. And then school districts are a different story. I'm guessing that it's not going to change. But philosophically, I have I have I would prefer it to be just market based. >> I understand. >> I think you get into a little bit of the fundamental difference between private and public sector. My private sector is we don't have a I mean I don't have a cola increase. It's a it's a merit based increase based on your production and you know where you're at. >> People are willing to pay for engineering services. >> Yeah, exactly. How profitable your company is, things of that nature. But as you mentioned earlier, you know, government entities aren't in the business of there to make a profit. They're there to serve the public and get paid for that service. [snorts] >> So, what we're hearing is possible ideas for a sale that hasn't occurred, possible stretching out of capital levy based upon amazing modeling with many unknowns that still might be unknown. Um >> I so just start to to hit on that though because the modeling that we were shown within 10 years of the models that we were again I don't I you you provided this information so the graphs are there somewhere I remember you shar >> it changes everything change like all the information changes and then I have to like restructure something because of something else so I I'd have to >> if it's within the ballpark at least it was showing within 10 years that the original [clears throat] planned amount that we would be very close to the 20 million and if we did the slightly slower approach that we would be 5 million off [clears throat] you know from from where we would be if we did the as proposed approach >> I fully support stretching it out >> 20 it's I I don't think the projections are so far out that we have to I think the projections were far enough out that we could know within the next 10 years if we're making a dent satisfactory enough or not in our debt amount for us to make a decision of do we need to stick with the approach that we're taking or can we make that approach more gradually. >> Yep. And then making sure category 5 is not included in projections. >> Yeah, I'm with >> which also is then on us to make sure that when we see the packet and category fives, we're like yes, staff fully agree with that. That is speculative and not something we want to base a capital levy on. >> [clears throat] >> That's on us too. >> Just to clarify, did we not want to adopt category five in the CIP at all or >> to be there and to exist as a placeholder but placeholder but not as a cost? >> Okay, >> catch up. Thank you. >> Not an expenditure item, >> not a projection impact. But [snorts] with that said, I and I've told residents this many times now. I cannot I cannot exaggerate at all how much better we are in a position in terms of staff in terms of the quality of the reports coming out in terms of the analysis. This wasn't occurring when we came on board. This certainly wasn't occurring when we were on the planning commission. Like the hard part is that we are finding out information that many people don't want to hear, >> you know, >> but it's we need to hear that so that we can then have our conversations with residents as to here's the status. [snorts] Now, what are your priorities? We can't do that without this work. So, thank you for that. like it they're hard commerce. No one likes tax increases. No one in this world does. [snorts] The costs are the cost and then it comes down to well what are the costs and that's where we come in. But we can't do this without your work. So thank you for that to the entire finance team. >> All right. We've given them clear direction. >> Is it the new So I heard from council member concern what his uh sort of palatable um increase is. Is there a um t a percentage increase that feels okay in our gut or a or a levy rate that feels okay more than something else? like just so I can I can massage numbers and um one of the phrases I always have had is the costs are the cost and that I don't like doing it backwards to say here's because we know full well the costs eb and flow and you can't say this year it's going to be 2% when we know the inputs vary like that. With that said, what a many residents might say is whether that's 31 31 a.5 that's a hell of a lot more palatable and easier to explain than 33.92. But I also am fully aware a lot of that increase are things that we already approved and things that we have a responsibility to tell our constituents. Well, it's for public safety, it's for our roads, it's for infrastructure. So I I hesitate to say yes, go for 31.5 [clears throat] because >> that's a shot in the dark. I I was looking at it because I agree. I don't want to look at the tax rate. I was looking at just the total levy spend >> percentage. Oh, >> and that's where that's my where I said the 9.3% increase from 2026 11.5 million to 12.5 million. >> Yeah. >> So, spending a million just over a million more is what I think is I'm not going to say palatable. I think it's what's needed based off the growth of the city. and cost the the budgets go up and I that so that totals that means decreasing the levy by 1.3 million. You could you know cut a a significant a good portion of that potentially on the sale if the sale happens. We could cut 285,000 from the capital levies and then we're looking at about 400,000 still where you know we have to go budget or department by department and find where $10,000 can be saved. Small changes Well, let's ask the staff to take a look at that. Cliff has nothing else to do. [snorts] >> And this is where the pen goes flying right at you. >> I mean, I I don't >> It's going to be hard. It would be extremely hard and it's for many things that are in our strategic plan and things that I I've had one email of someone asking about this. So I I I can't make a conclusion based upon one email. Obviously this is part of the process for the next several months. I I I fully support a levy of 13. I I don't I >> 13 like you're not saying like what's proposed 13.9 you're saying like of >> 13 >> 13. >> Yeah. With with a red reduction with hopefully things that we can find um we as in staff. >> So going back to some of the um changes. So, um I think that the um uh sheriff's contract um feels like it's it's not a for sure thing. That's their recommendation. So, are we like 100% on board with that change >> this year? I think we need to add a deputy for sure. >> I think so, too. >> We've added a lot of population. With that comes increased percentages or not percentages but just increased incidents. I mean more people more incidents. I I think I guess I'm having a little bit of a hard time with it because the residents from the data that was presented the residents aren't it's not necessary based off the data that was presented for the residents where I'm a little bit more for it is for the safety of the deputies. That's where I guess I >> is what's kind of flipping my decision. not wanting to at first to I don't want to put them in danger. I guess that's where I'm struggling a little bit. >> Having six deputies in a city of 14,000 is real lean >> is a real lean. Seven real. >> That's what I said. I wish they would have presented that in the presentation because I think that makes a big difference. >> Well, he did tell us that you know his model is using >> one deputy per Yeah. But yeah, one per 2,000 where most models show one per 1,000. >> Yeah. >> So having seven versus >> 15, that's a big difference. >> Agreed. >> But it also also means another deputy within a year or two. >> Could I don't >> based upon what we've already approved because we will be over 16 within a year or two based upon what we've already approved. Yeah, I I think it does. >> Okay. Well, we can definitely take this and do our best and trim around the edges and um I certainly have ideas. >> Um >> we have some time. We can set a preliminary level like say we can reduce it. Is there a preliminary levy? Well, we work through some of this and you know and see if Jason comes through for us and um maybe some of that magic will work and we can get to the number we'd like to get to without you know too much pain. >> Yep. So, what is the direction for staff regarding operations? >> I just want to make sure that's clear. I >> No pressure. what was included in the budget documents this year. Um Clarissa have helped us put together a summary of budget changes. So the departments went through and and pointed out to you um the big cost drivers the changes. So um we have that information in there for you if there's any discussion on it. Otherwise I just want to be clear on the direction to staff. >> I'll give my input on that again is I'm happy to come back at the preliminary budget. I don't have it right now, but I'm happy to [clears throat] look at line by line and suggest the exact ones if that's what's necessary. I think a better practice would be to challenge all of the department heads to say if we have to cut our budget by 10%. What are those? Where does it come from? And report that to us. If it has to get cut by 10%, what are those items? Because again, if I go through this, I'm not going to have the insight that you have in making those decisions. What I would prefer to do is set the policy of we need to spend less and then let you who are doing the job figure out how could we potentially achieve that? And if it's absolutely impossible, then report that to us. That's I I'd be fine with that. >> Yep. I just I guess that would be my request is do the practice of if I have to cut 10%. What is it? >> Yeah. Um as part of our budget discussions with each department, I did ask that. And so the common response to that is the training the um the training conferences, but I don't know that it's we're talking thousands of dollars. So I don't know. >> So then we need to find what that where else would it come from, right? And again, >> if it's just not palatable, then okay, then we have to make that decision. >> But if we don't attempt to do the hard exercise of figuring out where to cut, we're not going to. Yeah, I I guess we need a little bit more clear direction because staff this staff comes this operating budget is what they believe is necessary for the city and their departments. So maybe we can, you know, the summary of the budget changes lays out what the increases are, the big increases, but otherwise I'm not sure there is no fluff, I guess. So >> I I'm not saying there's fluff. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is sometimes it is hard to get rid [clears throat] of things and sometimes it can make it harder and it might not be possible. But again, because this is why why I have a hard time with this conversation because you guys ask us for input on specific items and then this is immediately the response we're given. And so I I I don't want to go through line item by line item because I know this is going to be the response. And so I I I I know this is hard when you have a budget and you've worked really hard to put in here and not have bluff and now we're saying, "Hey, we need to remove more." I understand that that's hard. If it isn't possible, I'd rather have that reported back to us at that preliminary hearing with explanations of why we're unable to cut anymore. So, it's crystal clear of like this is there's absolutely no way we can get rid of any of these things because I I can guarantee you we can get rid of more. But we know a little over half is labor related insuranceances. staff pay increases um the new um leave programs and things like that. Okay, we're not going to get any out of there. So, it's the operating supplies and capital improvement and you know things like that that we're going to take a look at. Maybe there's a capital improvement say well you know we have to we could delay this one here or something like that. I don't know. I know it's it's going to be a difficult task because so much of it is absorbed in labor related costs that we can't change without reducing staff and I don't hear there there's no there's no appetite for doing that and maybe it's again sometimes the benefit of doing this practice if you really take it serious is it does force innovation. It forces creativity. Maybe there's different ways to do things that haven't been looked at. And again, maybe there isn't. I'm just giving again, this is my my feedback of as far as, you know, you ask for like how should we go about doing that? That is my feedback for how I would suggest going about doing that. >> Yeah. >> And I'm not saying it's easy or I'm not saying it's possible. I'm just saying that is my recommendation of how to approach [snorts] it. >> Maybe we will continue um especially after we have the close session next Tuesday, we have more dialed in numbers there can check on the capital stuff and then maybe um with the summary of budget changes we can have more of a dialed in discussion about them. So it's like when I look at this as kind of like a in between besides going line item by line item this is a summary of the big cost drivers in the department what's changed >> and I don't know if the big I don't know if the big changes are the things to change though right like maybe those are absolutely necessary. So again, that's where I I have a hard time saying get rid of this one item that you put on here as a as a big change because maybe I agree with that big change or maybe that big change is necessary. Again, I I guess just input from having done this myself when going through and trying to cut budgets. I think software is always an area that always is kind of seems to be unique. So that'd be a suggestion as far as looking are there any where we have redundancies in software extra subscriptions and again I'm just giving input again because that's what you guys are asking for here. >> I I don't know what it is >> but again if we don't make the effort and go in with the intent of like if I absolutely have to cut 10% where does it come from then it's not going to happen. There's no chance it's going to happen. And so I think it's just it's going in with that mindset and understanding that like maybe we can't get there, but we're going to make every effort we can. It is an exercise you go through when you're trying to meet a budget and keep expenditures at a minimum. I've looked through it. I've seen the large percentages uh different ways to attack it. When I see I I just I see a lot of the when I look at the spreadsheet and request a change percentage, I'm looking for higher numbers. Some are up or some are down. I look across over at the description will seem to make sense, but I think it's an exercise worth going through. Try and scrub it. If you can't scrub it, then you can't scrub it. And I guess I'll just add to that. If you can scrub it, I would rather you still scrub it, but report what that means as far as what's the result of of scrubbing that item, right? Does that scrubbing this item mean? I mean, one thing that sticks out to me here is uh in public works temporary [snorts] employees is up 74%. Is that you're adding another summer person? And I mean, just some of those those higher numbers that stick out, you know, we see we understand that sand and salt's coming in. That's that's a big big jump. Um, so I mean the other piece here is staff is essentially asking do we want to change any of our strategic priorities that that's what's really being asked. which is why I don't support bringing it back to a much larger amount because I know that that means not doing certain hires, not investing in say the firetruck, not investing in our roads, but yes, 33.92 I that's not going to be what's going to happen in in November, December. I fully expect we'll be able to get that down. But I don't want to say what that exact number is because I I don't believe that's how budgeting works. I think the costs are the cost based upon our strategic planning of what we have directed staff to create. It's true. >> I don't see I don't see fluff in here. I I I don't Are there ways [clears throat] to innovate and and change or create a a different way of how labor is routed. I mean sometimes when we you know when some of the places I've worked I don't know when council member Hearn mentions software subscription do we have multiple ArcGIS uh subscriptions where you know only one person's using it do we need one or do we have I don't know I don't know the answer to that I mean just things of that nature right um it's an audit you're trying to kind of audit where you're at. And I guess this goes back to more of what I was pushing for last year, the approach of >> to your point of the strategic plan. And this is where again with the capital levies one, I think it's going to be a huge impact to just get rid of those category five items from the CIP. I think that's going to change the projections significantly. And then I think we need to take a closer look again at the CIP with the look at the vehicle replacement plan and is seven years more appropriate for some of these vehicles than six, right? And over the uh the whole fleet of 40 different vehicles. That's a huge difference of what we're trying what we're telling the city that we need to raise funds for over the next 30 to 40 years. And so that is where I I still do think looking at our capital expenditures, whether that be with the vehicle replacement plan, making sure that we, you know, seeing if we can be using these vehicles longer. Um, as we talk about the firet truck with making sure that we refurbish it 15 years from now versus buying a new one, I I that is where I think we can make a really big dent because again, when we talk about a a $1,000 budget line item, Yeah. these are really hard to cut and get rid of. I think some of the capital levies I think that's where it can move the needle a lot more with little changes. So I don't want to get too focused on just the general fund there uh the the budget. I I want to still look at it and do that. My suggestion would be how do you get 10% out of that? But how do we decrease the spending of the on the capital levies decrease our amount of spending in the capital improvement projects and can we just decrease how much we're actually levying in the first place to take a slightly slower approach. So then we're approaching this from three different angles and it's not just looking at the revenue side of things. It's looking at the expense side of things which is I think our responsibility to be thorough on those. I can't. I thought I was coming and I was gonna say anything. Told my wife I'd be back at 8:30. >> Screwed that one up. >> All right. If we need to have another workshop with staff, then we can schedule a special workshop if needed. [clears throat] Clear? >> Yes. >> All right. With that, I thank everybody for their attention and their time. I'll adjourn this meeting at 10:09.