[0:03] We'll call the order of the regular meeting of the Upper Lee City Council for Monday, December 8, 2025. Please call the roll.

[0:11] Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, which please rise and train me in the pledge of allegiance.

[0:23] to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,

[0:32] in visible liberty and justice for all.

[0:38] Welcome tonight, whether you're here in person or online, we're glad to have you.

[0:43] We have no ceremonial items tonight, item four is public forum, do we have speakers?

[0:49] Okay.

[0:49] All

[0:57] right. Robert Filbrunn, come on up.

[1:05] Welcome.

[1:07] Thank you. Robert Filbrunn, 21-458-775 Avenue.

[1:13] I was just wondering on a love of struck stop out there.

[1:17] I was up here a couple of years ago and they put up a stop sign up there.

[1:23] And a sign went around over it and they never got to put back up again.

[1:27] I want to know who's responsible for that love, or the city, or what?

[1:35] Okay, so we'll have somebody look into that for you and there will also

[1:40] be a new stop sign shortly.

[1:42] Okay.

[1:44] Also on the truck side, there's no stop signs, and on that new grocery store, there's no stop

[1:52] signs.

[1:54] So you could check on all of them because they come out of there and they don't look.

[2:01] I don't know if they figured it's not a street or what.

[2:05] All right.

[2:06] We appreciate you bringing that to us tonight and we'll look into it.

[2:09] Thank you.

[2:10] All right.

[2:15] Item 5 is a consent and approval of Agenda A is the approval of the minutes of the November

[2:19] 24th, 2025 regular council meeting.

[2:23] Item B is the approval of minutes of the November 24th, 2025 work session.

[2:27] and item C is a resolution accepting and awarding low bids for the 2026 chemicals and fuel council

[2:33] move to approve the consent and approval of agenda here on a motion by Councillor Baker is there a second no second you're on a second by

[2:40] Consular Anderson any further discussion

[2:42] Hearing none all in favor the motion signify by saying aye. I oppose nay

[2:47] motion carries

[2:49] Item six is petitions requesting communications. We have none tonight item seven is unfinished business. We have none tonight

[2:55] item 8 is new business, a is truth in taxation, public hearing.

[3:01] We'll call the public hearing to order and we'll start with a staff report.

[3:11] Finance director or city manager, did you want to speak first?

[3:15] Yes, go ahead.

[3:16] I want to thank everyone who has shown to this truth in taxation hearing.

[3:22] Taxes are never a pleasant subject.

[3:25] nor is it pleasant to pay them, but I do want to let people know that in part what may

[3:34] be experienced by some is not being experienced by all.

[3:38] If you were to read the paper, I believe a few weeks ago, the assessor said that they're

[3:45] having a lot of work to do and how they do their valuations, and from what I have gathered

[3:51] within the city that while we lower the tax rate,

[3:55] if your valuation had stayed the same,

[3:58] you would actually see a decrease in your taxes.

[4:01] If your valuation decreased,

[4:03] you definitely would see an even larger decrease.

[4:06] If your valuation improved at the average within the city,

[4:11] which was 16.43,

[4:13] you would see it increased by the actual amount of the levy,

[4:17] which would be proposed right now by staff at 5.9.

[4:22] But there are some that have seen a increase far greater than 16.43%

[4:28] within the city, and those people are quite frankly experiencing

[4:32] a much darker impact than those that had not.

[4:38] And I basically want to say that there's in part a lot of concern

[4:45] about that and that while the city does whatever it can to try to make things as balanced

[4:51] and as even flowing as possible throughout the years, the valuation is one thing that

[4:56] we do not have any control over. It's impacted by everything from the housing shortage to the

[5:02] very process at the assessor's office. And that in April would be the time if you do wish to contest

[5:09] your valuation. In April when you get to notice that would be the time to notify the county and

[5:15] and challenge your evaluation.

[5:16] So in the future, please make sure that you look to that

[5:20] when you do get the notice.

[5:22] And if you have any issues or disputes,

[5:24] take it to the hearing that is scheduled for that.

[5:29] I believe later in, I believe it's late spring,

[5:32] is when the hearing takes place.

[5:35] So with that, I would like to ask the Finance Director,

[5:40] Christie, would you like to come up

[5:41] and give a quick presentation on the budget?

[5:44] So tonight we're kind of going over a combination of a process that we started in early June.

[5:52] Many meetings with staff.

[5:53] We had a council budget committee that met and then more staff meetings, but we have,

[6:00] this has been a six months process to kind of get us to where we're at today.

[6:09] For 2026, if you remember at Prelim, we were looking at a 8% increase.

[6:14] We were able to make some adjustments and now we're looking at a 5.9% increase, 6.5 million

[6:21] of the levy that we're proposing tonight is for the general fund.

[6:25] And then an additional 2.753 million for the general fund and the debt levy and then

[6:32] a total levy of 9.286 million, which again is an increase of 5.9%.

[6:39] And mainly we were able to reduce that levy from the 8%

[6:43] down to the 5.9 because of some adjustments that we saw

[6:47] when we received our final workers comp information.

[6:50] We also had open enrollment and some changes in benefits.

[6:54] We were also able to put away some extra funds in our blight

[6:58] fund and also in the Broadway Ridge grant funds.

[7:03] So for 2026, we are looking at an increase in revenue

[7:07] of 4.3%, 890,000, which does include the levy increase of 558 expense changes.

[7:16] We are a pretty typical city.

[7:18] We are a 73% personnel cost for the general fund, and those costs stay go up 4%.

[7:26] This was the final, 2026 is the final year for the compensation and classification study

[7:33] that was done.

[7:33] As far as other personal changes, there's a new patrol officer in the budget for March

[7:39] of 2026, a GIS position in engineering in October of 2026.

[7:49] And also, we will be re, there's some reorganization that's going to go in the inspection and the

[7:56] planning departments that we're looking at July of 2026 for that reorganization.

[8:01] The other categories to supplies and the other services and charges as you can see did not go up as much, but again, we're an increase of 890,000 about 4.3%.

[8:13] A little more detail on the revenues. Where does the city get their revenue? We are 32% local government aid. So we do get most of our revenue in the general fund from LGA.

[8:25] It's about 6.9 million, and then city property taxes again about 6.5 million or 30%, 30%.

[8:34] We do have charges for services, and those are anything from building inspection, permit fees, charges for the arena, ice fees, pavilion rental fees, any type of charges for services like that, which is 16%, 13% of our revenue comes from transfers from the utility funds.

[8:54] So the general fund does charge the general fund for certain costs.

[9:01] So the general fund does cover all salaries for, like, say, the finance department, but

[9:06] some of those salaries with those transfers are charged back to the utility funds.

[9:12] And then 9% of our revenue does come from franchise fees, from cable, from electricity, and

[9:19] from gas charges, gas utilities.

[9:20] So,

[9:24] again, in earlier was talking about tax capacity, our tax capacity from 2025 to 2026

[9:30] went up to $0.4 million, about 16.43%, and as you can see from this change, the largest

[9:38] increase was in residential homestead values, which went from $7.4 million up to $8.8, which

[9:45] was an increase of $1.4 million, or about almost 19%.

[9:51] So, how does this all relate back to the city's tax levy?

[9:57] So, after you have the tax, you have the levy, which we might right now, we're looking

[10:01] at 9.286 million.

[10:05] We know that our tax capacity is about 16.9 million.

[10:09] So, what we do is we take the levy divided by the tax capacity, and that's how we get the

[10:13] tax rate.

[10:14] So in 2025, our final tax rate was 60.126, and in 2026, we're looking at a tax rate of 54.693,

[10:26] which actually is a decrease in the tax rate of about 9.04%.

[10:36] So what does that do overall to the

[10:38] taxes if you had a $100,000 property or per $100,000 property in 2025 taxes would have

[10:48] been $601 for 2026 if that $100,000 property is still $100,000. It actually would go down

[10:57] 54.33 per year. If your tax, if the value went up by the amount that the tax capacity increased,

[11:05] the taxes actually would go up $35.53 or about $296 a month.

[11:12] On the $250,000 property for 2025, the taxes would be $1,500, $3.15

[11:21] for 2026, if that $250,000 property was still $250,000,

[11:28] the taxes would go down about $135.

[11:31] And if that $250,000 property increased by the amount of the tax opacity increase, the taxes would go up 88.81%.

[11:43] And again, when we're talking tax rate, this is the city's tax rate.

[11:47] City's tax rate alone.

[11:53] So what do your taxes buy per month?

[11:56] So we say that, you know, you're sitting at that 54.893% tax rate, about $14.11 per month goes towards public safety.

[12:08] We are, again, our just budget item, our largest budget line item is public safety, which does include fire, police, and building inspection.

[12:18] $6.41 for culture and recreation, which is anywhere from parks, the library, the arena,

[12:30] the pool, any types of facilities, $5.13 for public works, which includes our streets,

[12:36] it includes snow plowing, our engineering department, $4.49 general government, which includes

[12:43] anything from elections. It also includes our city manager budget, our finance department budget, our city clerk budget.

[12:51] Any of those types of budget communications as well as included in there.

[12:55] $1.92 for fund transfers for equipment. The city has historically always put money away

[13:00] to save for projects or upcoming capital projects, so $1.92 goes there.

[13:06] And then 13th 51 for debt service, which is to fund not only our street projects, but

[13:14] any other capital projects, which it does include the arena project that's going on right

[13:19] now.

[13:24] The 2026 HRA levy in September, the HRA did request 266,000.

[13:32] They could have again requested the maximum amount, which is a state formula that were required

[13:40] to follow by state statues, they could have requested up to 309, $309,000, $67,000.

[13:47] They did choose at that time to stay at 266 and right now we are looking at that same 266 from

[13:57] Prelim to today and that is the same amount again that they requested in 2025.

[14:04] Oh, and I should say too that the 266 that they are requesting they are planning on using

[14:09] for you on a redevelopment and then some workforce housing projects that they're looking at.

[14:17] Also tonight we'll be looking at fee schedule changes normally we only we will update the

[14:24] fee schedule one time it's this time in the year it'll be affect all the fees would be

[14:27] effective January 1. We do occasionally have a few fees that we might ain't changed

[14:32] during the year but mostly there are a lot of clarification and consolidation of the fees

[14:38] if you look through the information that was in the packet there were a lot of fees that

[14:42] we found out we really didn't need to be in there or were redundant so we did remove those.

[14:48] A couple notable increases hangar rent at the airport went up five to seven dollars per month.

[14:54] The ice rental based on when you rent the ice went anywhere up anywhere from five to twenty

[15:00] $2 per hour. The doc permits, went up $10 per year, and then liquor license. The off sale license is going from $450 to $560 a year, and then the on sale is increasing from $2,000 a year to $2,800 a year. I will note that there's a resolution later in the council meeting that we're going to address that increase from $2,000 to $2,800. There's some options to reduce those.

[15:29] those, the 2800 for 2027. 2026, sorry.

[15:37] And then the last fee that we always include about

[15:40] this time in the year is the water and sewer fees. We're looking at a 7% water or 7% sewer

[15:45] and a 5% water increase for 2026. So what does that, I mean the water and sewer rates, what

[15:52] does that do to a residential home that's using, which we call an average of 6,000 gallons,

[15:59] which is a number that isn't used just by Albert Lee, that's used everywhere.

[16:04] What an average consumer uses for water.

[16:07] If you're using those 6,000 gallons per month, your utility bill will go up $5.6 per month.

[16:16] So it'll increase from $8292 to $87.58.

[16:25] Where do our rates look like compared to other communities around us?

[16:29] And again, we're looking at these, these are the 2025 rates and this is the most current information we have.

[16:35] Elbert Lee is on a little bit on the lower side. We do it. There is a couple on here that are lower,

[16:43] but we are kind of sitting in the middle if you look at it here. We are a little bit unique in that we

[16:48] don't have a stormwater fee, which is the rate that's in purple. So you kind of have to look at that and adjust

[16:54] that number down and take that storm water fee.

[16:59] Our storm water costs are budgeted in our general fund budget.

[17:03] We don't have a separate fee for that.

[17:08] Tonight we'll also be approving the water fund budget, so along with the rate increase,

[17:14] we do go through that budget and increase it.

[17:16] For 2025 to 2026, we're looking at a net change before depreciation, about $380,000.

[17:25] And then the net change at the end of the year from 2025 to 2026 is about $330,000.

[17:31] We do look at the cash and make sure that I mean cash is where we want to keep an eye on

[17:35] because we have to keep an eye on that for projects that are coming up.

[17:38] In 2023 at the end we had about 4.7 million and then at the end of 24 we have about 5.3 million.

[17:46] And the reason we keep those reserves are in there and those cash amounts there is that

[17:51] that we're planning ahead for future projects

[17:54] that the water fund will have.

[17:58] The sewer fund revenue for 2025 to 2026

[18:03] increased about 381,000 with those rate changes

[18:07] that we discussed earlier.

[18:09] The sewer fund does pretty typically

[18:13] after depreciation run at a net loss,

[18:16] but most of the time we're looking at before depreciation,

[18:19] which is a change of about $149,510.

[18:24] The sewer fund does have a substantial cash balance by 8.8

[18:29] at the end of 23 and about 11.1 at the end of 2024,

[18:33] but we will be using those funds in the next few years

[18:36] on the wastewater treatment plant projects.

[18:41] The solid waste fund is also known as the transfer station.

[18:46] And those fees were not increased substantially in 2026.

[18:51] The current fees are sufficient to cover the operating costs with what we have to keep

[18:56] an eye on and the solid waste fund is if there are any capital projects, those fees that

[19:01] we're charging there are not able to sustain any large capital projects that may come up for

[19:07] the solid waste fund at the transfer station.

[19:13] The airport is the last fund that we budgeted for, the airport did have some increases in

[19:17] their fees as we discussed earlier, so we did increase those revenues about $8,000.

[19:22] Again, what we're only budgeting in the airport fund is the operating costs, so it's the

[19:28] daily rent that they collect, and also their daily operating costs.

[19:33] We don't budget for any type of capital improvement projects in this budget, but we do, those

[19:40] are included in our capital improvement plan.

[19:44] The airport cash at the end of 2023 is about $226,000.

[19:50] At the end of 2024 is about $402,000.

[19:53] You know, they do get a lot of money from federal and state grants.

[19:57] So their cash balance does seem to fluctuate.

[20:00] I mean, at the end of 2022 it actually had a zero cash balance.

[20:05] So it just depends on when those funds are coming in for those projects.

[20:08] The

[20:13] 26 to 2030 capital improvement plan, just a couple of reminders about the capital improvement plan.

[20:19] It is a plan and it can change based on needs and resources.

[20:23] The 2026 projects less than $100,000 will move ahead after tonight, but they will require city manager approval.

[20:34] No further action by the council is required for those projects that are less than $100,000.

[20:39] And there's a couple of reasons why they would have to come back to Council.

[20:44] If it's, if once we get there and we're looking at it, if it's going to be 20 percent over

[20:49] the CIP amount, the funding is undetermined, the funding changes.

[20:54] If we thought we could pay for it with one fund and then we found out that fund doesn't

[20:57] have sufficient funds to fund that project, then we'd have to move.

[21:02] That would require approval.

[21:04] And also anything the council can also say tonight that there's a particular project that is under 100,000 that they would like brought back to council for approval.

[21:18] No projects, even if they're under 100,000, no matter what the value, no matter what they are from 27 to 2030, can move forward without council approval.

[21:28] Those are all required to have council approval to move ahead.

[21:33] Just a couple of project highlights for 2026.

[21:38] Again, we're looking at the wastewater treatment plan about 25 million.

[21:42] There's a project for the city center improvement project, about 1.6 million.

[21:47] Blazing star landing development project, 1.2 million.

[21:52] Replace some water mains on 4th Street in Sorenson, 1.16 million, 880,000 to clean up 620 Adams Avenue.

[22:04] and then 800,000 for trail projects that include the Madison to Trunk Highway 74 project and then Fallen Street to Manchester.

[22:14] Some additional 2026 street projects that the engineering department will be working on.

[22:19] There's a $4.765 million project for Valley Avenue and Marshall Street reconstruction.

[22:27] 1.48 million for Adams or Minah, Water and William Street overlay project.

[22:34] and a smaller reconstruction project at St. Mary about $297,000.

[22:45] Those projects that we were just talking about, like we always look at, I mean, we forecast out five years,

[22:51] but just kind of, for an example, the 2026 public works projects, the portion of that project that is going to be levied for,

[23:00] will increase the levy in 2027 so it's always a year behind the projects in

[23:05] 26 but the levy increased doesn't happen until 2027 so for the 2026 public

[23:12] works projects will show an increase in the levy of 153,000 the city center

[23:18] improvements about 76,300 and again that project is funded with levy it also has a

[23:26] portion that's funded with the water fund and also a portion that's funded with the sewer fund.

[23:32] And then some equipment certificates that we're looking at in 2026 for key cards and some lighting

[23:40] upgrades in and at City Hall. And you can see that the change from 26 to 27 is 12,700. The biggest

[23:50] reason for that is we are issuing some new debt so there will be new levy but there are some levy

[23:57] Levy that we issued in prior years that will be falling off so that's why the decrease

[24:02] is smaller.

[24:03] As you can see in that 20, 20, 7 debt levy.

[24:07] And whenever we're like cash flowing out the capital improvement projects, we always

[24:11] try to make sure that we're balancing and making sure the levy stays as steady as we possibly

[24:17] can.

[24:17] Moving projects around that require levy and so we don't have a larger impact in one year

[24:23] versus another.

[24:24] So

[24:28] tonight, again, these are the resolutions that we'll be looking at, the 2026 tax levy, the HRA levy, the 2026 budgets, the 2026 to 2030 capital improvement plan, and last the 2026 fee schedule.

[24:47] All right, with that, are there any questions from the council or comments?

[24:52] I know, the finance director.

[24:54] Councillor Baker. On the e-vehicles that we talked about, the city is going to purchase.

[25:01] What are they doing for the charging stations? Is that included in the price?

[25:07] I'm going to let Ian answer that.

[25:12] If we were making a purchase then yes,

[25:15] that would be part of the total package with the purchase. I know that there's one being

[25:21] currently reevaluated because of there were certain there were a couple of

[25:28] different issues that come up with availability that when we've called back in

[25:32] now and are reevaluating that but per climate change policy where we can find a

[25:39] practical replacement whether it's EV or hybrid we do seek those options but if

[25:46] is not practical, then it would not move forward.

[25:51] But typically, yes, that is included in the price,

[25:54] the charging station, okay.

[25:57] Thank you.

[25:58] I got one question on your letter.

[26:00] That's for the committee.

[26:01] What brands are we looking at with EV vehicles?

[26:04] City manager?

[26:06] As for the brand, we focus more on the price availability

[26:11] and whether or not it's going to suit the needs.

[26:14] so whether it's a Hyundai Honda Subaru Ford Chevy Dodge is generally irrelevant to the decision-making

[26:23] and said it's based on how will that make and model best suit the needs and what is the best value

[26:29] based off a state bid price. Thank you. Additional discussion.

[26:40] All right, hearing none, I'm going to

[26:42] open up the public hearing but just a and we'll ask each one of you that would like to speak tonight

[26:47] to come forward. State your name. If you want to give us your address too, that would be great,

[26:52] but name for sure. And then we're going to have you if you want to speak to any of the six

[26:59] different resolutions that we'll be passing tonight, I'm going to ask during the public hearing

[27:04] that you would speak to which one you want to speak to. And then once we close that public hearing,

[27:10] we're going to go through each of the resolutions one-on-one, but the public discussion will be over

[27:14] by that point, okay? So if you have information you want to share with us on water and sewer

[27:20] rates, we want you to do that during the public hearing. So with that, we'll open up the public

[27:25] hearing and would anyone like to speak?

[27:32] Donald jump up at once.

[27:38] Welcome.

[27:41] My name is John Gerke

[27:42] and with me I got Robert Hoffman. Some of the issues we have with the tax raise here in

[27:51] and we're mostly speaking towards apartment complexes.

[27:56] There's some of the issues there that we see that are going to end up going downhill and going to our tenants instead of us.

[28:03] One of the things they increased rent to tenants.

[28:07] If you raise our taxes as a landlord, that's going to roll downhill, that's going to go right to our tenants every time, and that's pretty much how that goes.

[28:18] I know an investment, discourage investment here in Aberdeley.

[28:22] So higher taxes, even if you do a basement on new builds, it's not going to matter whenever

[28:27] five years they're going to come into a tax increase, five years later, that we have

[28:32] to deal with.

[28:34] Burden on low income families, I think that's kind of talked about with the tenants.

[28:38] So low income, that's a lot of our tenants is low income.

[28:42] They can't afford to go and buy new houses, they can't afford the down payment for these

[28:47] especially with that increase coming.

[28:49] We also have increases coming with our utilities too.

[28:52] So we still are gonna see a tax or a rent increase,

[28:56] but not at the point where I was paying $40,000 for taxes

[28:59] and now I've got a 20% increase on that.

[29:02] That's gonna end up being a lot larger as well,

[29:04] on one property, that was just one single property.

[29:09] Risk of displacement, so with that,

[29:12] whenever you have tenants that are long term tenants,

[29:15] and they've stayed there for years and years and years and they're on a fixed income.

[29:20] You're going to see some of those maybe not being able to forward the new rent increases

[29:25] that we have for these people.

[29:29] Also, I kind of did a chat GBT. I don't know, you'll take that

[29:33] for what it is, but I tried to figure out the total number of buildings in Aberlin.

[29:38] With that, I've got an estimate of 10,289. I don't know if that's exact.

[29:45] there's no way to actually know that I've called three people at the county they didn't know

[29:49] so I kind of went off that. But out of that I did 20 total apartment buildings which is 10

[29:56] units or above. So out of the 10 units above there's about 20 total-

[30:00] Local department buildings. About that, there's about 758 units in those apartment buildings. So, for not increasing the taxes, of course, we still have to pay our taxes, the rest, pay taxes. But with not increasing those certain number of buildings, so 20 out of two are 10,289 give or take. You're saving 758 units, worth of tax increase, which is basically what it is. I mean, a rent increase,

[30:27] on top of utilities and top of everything else,

[30:30] they're going to see that hit in 2026.

[30:35] So I had just...

[30:37] Robert, do you have anything to add to that, really?

[30:40] John served in the Navy and is from Texas.

[30:42] I'm just here to interpret.

[30:43] He swears and swears a lot.

[30:45] I swear a lot.

[30:46] Public speaking is not my forte at all.

[30:50] But yeah, that's more my concern, right?

[30:53] We have about 80 units here in town and we continue to grow but the problem is if we go and buy in one we want to keep I would think we would want to keep our investors local.

[31:05] We don't want to see people from New York or California or anywhere else buying these buildings because what happens when they buy them they don't care.

[31:10] They don't care what this acts increases they're going to just increase the rent and that's it.

[31:15] But if you want to keep it local, you want to keep it people buying apartment buildings in this town, whether it's two units, four units, multi fan, it doesn't matter.

[31:26] You're going to end up with a problem because we're not going to be able to afford the tax increase here locally.

[31:32] It's going to be people that sold their building for $10 million and then they come here with their money and then they buy it.

[31:38] And if they don't end up with all the tenants in the building,

[31:41] they end up with half of it empty, doesn't matter.

[31:44] Then it's a tax break for them.

[31:46] So it's one of those lines that if you want to keep business local,

[31:52] that's another reason to keep it our taxes lower.

[31:58] And of course we're talking about, again, we want to be able to pay our taxes.

[32:02] We know we need to pay our taxes, but to increase, I'll say, a neighbor of mine.

[32:06] And so let's just say we take one of our properties and

[32:10] neighbor to that, a single family home, you increase at 20%, you increase us 20%.

[32:14] Well, you're increasing that one family, 20%.

[32:17] And that hits that one family.

[32:19] You increase our family, our place, 20%, you're increasing one place alone, 36 units,

[32:26] or it's individuals, which most of those probably are lower income residential people.

[32:30] So that's going to be an issue as well.

[32:33] So that's really, I mean, it's without the gut.

[32:37] No, John's just point out his concern of local investors,

[32:40] seeing local investors, maybe choosing not to invest

[32:43] local anymore.

[32:44] And everything that we've purchased between the two of us,

[32:47] we've got just under 300 units in town.

[32:49] We didn't buy anything from anybody local.

[32:52] Everybody that owned the buildings we had before

[32:54] were from out in town.

[32:55] And guarantee they didn't care as much as John and I did.

[32:58] But pretty soon, we won't be able to afford to carry there.

[33:01] And then also goes with the discouragement of investments, right?

[33:04] You have high-property taxes.

[33:06] You're going to make it to where people don't want to invest in hourly.

[33:10] They don't want to invest in hourly, but you have to fix problems that we have here.

[33:16] So if we increase those people that we have here already without adding new,

[33:20] because I know that's a big thing is adding more units to hourly to be able to grow hourly.

[33:26] I don't know how you're going to grow hourly.

[33:27] If the units that we have already are getting taxed to the point that people can't live there or they have to

[33:33] Figure out are we going to pay gas this month or are we going to pay the rent this month?

[33:39] So if we can't fix

[33:41] The apartments that we already have

[33:43] Excuse me already have

[33:45] How can we expect other investors come here?

[33:49] Give them a five-year tax break, but then just roll right into the tax problems that we have

[33:55] So we'll get five years of a new building

[33:57] That's great. But five years later, whenever the tax increase happens, what do we expect then?

[34:03] Are they going to want to rebuild? Are they going to want to add new buildings here?

[34:07] Are they going to, I mean, there's a lot of issues there, I think. But one of the things that I think,

[34:12] because I don't want to just come up green grape, right, complain, is doing something along the lines

[34:18] of an abatement on the apartments that are already here. That doesn't mean pay zero taxes,

[34:23] But a cap on some sort of a program that doesn't come in the state that comes from the city and the city caps apartment buildings for whatever you know, I'm not going to try to figure out those numbers here, but you know, we have a lot of units that are five from below those can be taxed a certain percent five to 10%

[34:45] percent and above certain percent and if the tax increase goes lower than that maybe we figure

[34:51] that at that time but if the tax increases higher of that 20 percent that just seems like it's

[34:59] going to cause a lot of burden for low income families here in this town. That's really all

[35:06] of God. All right thank you for coming and sharing with us tonight John and Robert we appreciate that

[35:12] And for the second time, would anyone like to speak?

[35:19] We think it's great.

[35:20] I'll take it.

[35:22] Jerry Collins, I live here in Albert Lee.

[35:25] I want to business here in Albert Lee.

[35:26] And one of the numbers that was pretty striking to me

[35:29] when I got my proposed taxes for 26 was on the distress

[35:34] property that we bought down on South Broadway.

[35:37] Obviously, we knew there was going to be an increase

[35:39] because we took a lot of our own money and finance some

[35:42] of that and turn it into what I think

[35:44] probably one of the best properties on South Broadway.

[35:48] Our proposed tax increase for that, and I know the city doesn't control this, but it's just a kind of, for instance,

[35:57] 457.7% on that structure is my increase for 26.

[36:04] And the, you know, the biggest problem is, and so the biggest increases aren't even necessarily coming from the city of Albert Lee.

[36:11] we've got the county taxes, we've got the state taxes which we know that most of our money

[36:17] over the last several years has been stolen from us, it seems to be very apparent.

[36:23] But it's all these things are incremental, and when it comes right down to the municipalities,

[36:30] there's a lot of business owners, a lot of property owners that want to spend money and redevelop

[36:35] and develop new properties here in Albert Lee, but when you then get a 450, almost 458% increase,

[36:44] it certainly dulls my enthusiasm to continue to rehabilitate properties within the city of Albert Lee.

[36:52] Knowing that it's not the city's fault, you guys didn't set that tax rate, but that just makes

[36:57] it one more thing. So then we talk about spending, I don't remember what the number was here in the city

[37:05] building. And I'll be honest, I don't give a crap if you have a new toilet in this facility.

[37:10] Like, I've been through this entire facility. It seems pretty adequate. We would, you know,

[37:15] I think most people would be just fine if the city didn't spend that money. We know that we have

[37:21] to have adequate water treatments and a lot of that is required through state statute and federal

[37:27] law. So, you know, like the, and I think you guys have done a relatively good job at trying to

[37:33] that the city increases as much as you can,

[37:37] but then we start talking about adding more government employees

[37:40] to the goal as well in 26.

[37:43] You know, and we have council members

[37:45] who are looking for breakdowns in the positions

[37:46] of what's the loaded cost?

[37:49] Because, you know, Mr. Rigg,

[37:51] we'll just use your extra right here in front of me.

[37:54] Your annual salary is not your loaded cost

[37:57] as an employee of the city of Albert Lee, right?

[38:00] There's benefits and retirement,

[38:02] all those things that go along with that.

[38:03] And, you know, those are the numbers that I think we should discuss if we, as we put,

[38:07] new city employees on the dole, is what is the loaded cost every year that we pay for

[38:13] these employees?

[38:15] And those breakdowns, salary versus benefit package, essentially, is one of the things

[38:21] that we should really discuss in the truth and taxation portion, but potentially.

[38:27] you know, and the reality is is everybody's pretty strapped right now. I mean, that's that is a harsh reality. We are a poor Southern Minnesota County. We are a poor Southern Minnesota city.

[38:39] And there's, you know, I mean, when the middle class and upper middle class people that I talk to on a very regular basis, start going, Jesus, what are we going to do?

[38:51] I mean we're 11.6 mile probably 12 miles north of the border right here and if I go 12 miles south of here all of a sudden my property taxes get cut by over a third for the for a very comparable property and I know that's not all the city's doing it is not.

[39:09] But all of this stuff continues to add up and, you know, like, we're beat up here.

[39:15] I mean, we're taking a weapon.

[39:17] And then we worry about, is every penny that we're allocating that our elected officials are voting on,

[39:25] is that accounted for?

[39:27] You know, and I appreciate the truth and taxation portion of it.

[39:31] When I think there's a whole bunch of things in here that we could probably cover a little more adequately,

[39:35] even just random terminology. She's a bookkeeper. She does this for a living. I don't, right?

[39:43] You know, I mean, you're a financial guru of Mr. Murray. Well, at least you want to be, right?

[39:49] You know, it's like I have every faith that you understand every single syllable as she said,

[39:55] but I don't think that shared throughout the community. And so maybe more transparency and more

[40:00] more education of our citizens would be something that we can work on as well.

[40:05] I'll, I'll just put my wine in there.

[40:07] Thank you guys.

[40:08] Appreciate it.

[40:08] I appreciate you.

[40:11] We appreciate you coming and speaking to you also next, please.

[40:17] Hi.

[40:17] My name is Jeff Rension.

[40:19] We're on two or three Giles.

[40:21] My question is touched on earlier when you were saying about how the assessors doesn't

[40:26] testing. We have a unique situation. Three years ago, this coming January, we had a

[40:32] house fire.

[40:37] A refrigerator, stove, and everything in the basement. We had to get the whole house.

[40:43] We had to replace all the appliances, all the windows. But walls were still intact, the firemen

[40:49] punched holes in them to look for fires. Well, right now, we're in the process of moving

[40:54] back in that house our taxes on that structure have gone up 118% and a lot of

[41:03] that's due to what they increased the value of the house we didn't remodel

[41:08] this house because we just got a whim you know that's those old we need a new

[41:12] one no we need a stove because ours is in the basement we rebuilt from a fire

[41:17] from a loss we didn't rebuild because we wanted a nicer house it was a necessity

[41:25] We have the same square footage, we have the same bathrooms, we lost a bedroom because

[41:31] we made our kitchen a little bigger.

[41:33] But we basically total loss and total rebuild.

[41:38] And I got the numbers and the numbers aren't matter, but the whole point is we've got

[41:44] the same property, same square footage, same number of bathrooms.

[41:50] We didn't expand anything, and 118,000 are about, I'm sorry, 118% is a big increase.

[41:58] And the majority of that is from the assessor assessing it to such a much greater value,

[42:04] almost double what the property is worth before our fire.

[42:08] And we haven't been in that house for three years now.

[42:12] And that's a big chunk, I just, I think it has a lot to do with how the assessors are

[42:19] assessing? Yeah, yeah, we got to install a new refrigerator, but we didn't have one before.

[42:27] I think there's a big difference in, and if you're upgrading versus rebuilding from the casualty, and that's basically what we've done.

[42:36] And 118%, I understand increases, I understand all that, but I think 118 in this unique circumstance is a little bit extreme.

[42:48] in touch that was one of you said something about how the

[42:51] assessors as assessing we had the assessor come in now they said

[42:54] about April time or something we didn't have a amount yet at that

[42:58] time because they hadn't been in for another inspection they would

[43:02] come in and inspect as we did plumbing electrical you know the

[43:06] different permits had come in and expect but the last time he was

[43:09] in he said don't worry about the evaluation because it goes

[43:13] was by foot. We were concerned about losing a bedroom and having our value good

[43:17] out because we didn't have free bedroom anymore. He said, don't worry about it. It's

[43:21] square footage. We go by square footage of the property. Not by what rooms, not by what

[43:27] bathrooms. And the point is, we had the exact same floor pan. Just, yeah, we've got new

[43:32] floors because we didn't have floors. We could walk from the living room to the kitchen

[43:37] and through the walls, I mean, it was bearable.

[43:40] And I guess my thing part of it is how the assessors

[43:44] are assessing it, and 118 I think it's a little extreme.

[43:48] And I don't know what we can do about it.

[43:50] So that's just bumpy.

[43:51] Not my bitch, but my beef, whatever you're talking about.

[43:55] All right.

[43:55] Yeah, I just think it's an extreme situation

[43:58] and it's not a remodel, it's a rebuild.

[44:01] I think there's a difference there

[44:02] that needs to be taken into consideration.

[44:04] All right.

[44:05] Thank you for coming and sharing

[44:06] with us tonight and the next speaker welcome

[44:17] well I'm Virgil Logan live at

[44:21] 217th Street it's a duplex and last year they raised it from 160,000 it was

[44:28] the 290,000 so I went last spring I went to their assessors meeting they come

[44:36] out and they looked but they lowered it to 209 or 235,000 which is still too much to

[44:43] me. I don't mind it raising some 10-20% but not that much. In the taxes are 61% higher than

[44:53] last year. It's over $1,000 more after paying taxes. And you try to do that on a retired

[45:00] Social security. Not easy. So, like the guys said, maybe moved Iowa.

[45:10] That's my complaint. So, thank you much. Thank you for sharing with us tonight.

[45:17] Next speaker.

[45:29] My name is Cynthia Gail. I live at 1520 Ashley Court. I'm getting ready to retire, I'm probably should retired years ago, but my property tax went about $1,200 this year, which is not okay.

[45:44] because obviously my wages or retirements,

[45:49] three of them are not gonna even equal that.

[45:52] But the other thing, I guess I'm gonna look at

[45:55] is the people that buy homes and they rent them out.

[45:59] No, they're not big apartment complexes,

[46:01] but they're people from Everett Lee.

[46:04] You go into it, I'm gonna just talk to me in my own care.

[46:08] You go into a trashed home house, you buy it,

[46:11] you clean it up, you fix it up, you buy a stove,

[46:14] you buy a refrigerator, wash your dryer,

[46:17] tear out the carpet, clean up the place,

[46:19] you rent it to somebody,

[46:21] we go through COVID and whatnot,

[46:24] and they get penalized, and then we go,

[46:28] and for some reason,

[46:30] somebody got this crazy idea

[46:32] that your $600 rent should be $1,000 rent now.

[46:37] Well, not everybody did that to their people.

[46:41] because some of the landlords and some of the people that own these homes or these properties

[46:46] care about their tenants. If they're furnishing a washroom dryer, a stolen refrigerator,

[46:52] they have to keep all that going. And you raise those taxes. These people are not all

[47:01] two husband and wife. They're raising children. They have families. But these people that own these

[47:09] maybe it's only ten. They're keeping all of that going for these people. They

[47:14] don't even have the heart to raise it from the 600 to the 1000 because they're

[47:18] not greedy. But then you give them these property taxes. Now they have no choice

[47:22] but to raise. We have to somehow this is, if you know what I think about psychology,

[47:29] a home is not a want. It's a basic need. So we say, oh the loss that we have to have

[47:35] this. The law said we have to that. You know what? Change the stupid law. Why can't you

[47:40] fight some of this? Oh, we have to have this raise. Well, I know we have a lot of fluff

[47:45] in this thing that you showed us. I've got to talk about fluff. I'm not going to talk about

[47:50] a trail or this or that. I am talking about a family having shelter. We have winter here

[47:56] in case you never noticed that. Change those laws. Do something. Don't say, oh, the law

[48:02] said, who makes the laws? Who can change the laws? We, the people. It's time for change.

[48:09] You don't up my stupid house insurance, whatever property taxes every single year.

[48:15] That is stupid. You're not raising my what do you call retirement pay? How many jobs do you want

[48:23] me to have to work? You know, you save all your life to have this nice home. You get this nice

[48:28] home and all of a sudden you get this burden. I work hard. And I invest a lot in

[48:35] students out of my own paycheck. And I don't care because if it makes them

[48:40] better, I'm willing to do it. But when I start to see people suffering over

[48:45] their homes, I can't sit home and say nothing. And you know what? I'm not the one

[48:51] renting out these homes. I'm not the one buying these homes. I am just here a voice

[48:56] for the people. And you are our elected officials. Where's your voice for the people?

[49:02] I'll have to say. Thank you for sharing with us tonight, Cindy.

[49:08] Yes. So because I know the council can't interact necessarily during this portion,

[49:15] I think it's worth saying that the vast majority of the complaints that came

[49:18] at the city council meeting this evening were regarding the assessments on our homes and

[49:24] businesses, all of that is done by the county of Freeborn County. The city does not

[49:30] assess properties, they don't raise those property taxes. So everybody that had the

[49:37] property tax increase concern, show up to the county and have the same at the county

[49:42] commissioners meeting because they do have direct impact on it. Not that it shouldn't happen

[49:47] here as well but that's where the change can actually be applied.

[49:51] Thank you for the third time would anyone like to speak tonight hearing

[50:02] none I

[50:03] will close the public hearing I'm

[50:07] going to open it up to the council for any

[50:09] comments or questions at this time and I would just like to start with thank

[50:15] you for each one of you that came and spoke tonight because we need to hear

[50:18] these things and you help us you know with our thoughts not just tonight but we'll

[50:23] be working on the next budget all year long so these things will resonate very

[50:28] well with it. So with that, we'll open up to the council.

[50:31] Your Honor.

[50:32] Councillor Baker.

[50:34] I just want to say my appreciation for everybody coming forward to speak.

[50:41] You know, every year when we come to do this, we have to decide what we're going to do as

[50:47] far as what we're going to do for expenditures, how we're going to set the tax levy.

[50:50] I just give you an example. I pay taxes to and since 2020 my taxes have gone up over

[51:03] $2600. So I see it. I've had conversations with the county assessor about how they

[51:12] go about and assess the homes. I have some questions that I still haven't been

[51:19] and able to get answered.

[51:21] So hopefully we can, you know, we deal with the county,

[51:28] we interact with the county so maybe we can come up

[51:32] and ask some of these questions also.

[51:35] I think it's important that everybody understand

[51:38] that we take this to heart.

[51:42] I mean, it's hard decision what we have to do here.

[51:46] And I understand you as you look at this and you talk about fluff, I'm not going to disagree with you on some of the stuff that maybe it's something that we don't need right now.

[52:00] But one thing I can honestly say that everybody on this council works as hard as they possibly can to make sure we keep the city portion taxes of that down.

[52:13] and I just you know it's hard it's a hard it's a hard thing to do you know

[52:21] when you have outside forces that that sometimes you can't do anything

[52:25] about there's there's things that you saw on the screen that that are

[52:31] probably wants we you know we're not to that point now we will get to it and

[52:38] and I feel confident that the council will address this in a right way but

[52:42] But again, I just want to say I appreciate everybody coming forward and laying it on us

[52:48] because we are the people that are elected to listen to what you have to say.

[52:56] And if there's something that we can do to try to help, I'm sure everybody on this

[53:01] council is more willing to make that step.

[53:06] That's all I need to say, Your Honor.

[53:07] Additional discussion.

[53:09] Your Honor.

[53:10] Councilor Anderson.

[53:11] I just like to say that in regards to one of the comments I'm one of those people that has some rental property

[53:15] So I definitely feel every tax increase but now that I've been on the budget committee. I actually see the city's portion

[53:21] Going up 5.9% is well, we don't want to see any increases, but

[53:26] That makes me sound like I'm pointing figures because there's other people that are involved in this

[53:30] It's the county and stuff like that. The question. I guess I have is

[53:34] I just more for the city manager. I would like to hear what

[53:36] What would we have to do to reduce the levy further even less than 5% even though

[53:41] Most of the increases that people are seeing have a lot more to do with their assessments than they do with that 5.9 percent

[53:46] But what would we have to do to reduce it further?

[53:49] City manager, there's no great answer, but there are a few areas that I think could be taken care of as they are considered temporary, but there's some risk associated with it.

[54:11] And one of them being $53,000 in debt service that's going towards the soil district's payment.

[54:20] That has still remained in the levy.

[54:23] Reason being is that we have not closed on the property sales at the blazing start that are intended to eventually reimburse that.

[54:33] So while we might get a reimbursement later, if it was put on the levy now, which would result in a decrease later.

[54:41] It could be taken now, a little bit of a risk, but it would lower it to from 5.95 to 5.3%.

[54:55] That is one.

[54:56] The other option is there could be reduction in the Broadway Ridge grants, but we know how

[55:02] that's being used and there could be reduction in the blight fund transfer, but we also know

[55:08] that long term depend upon what the outcome is for the grants for dealing with the old

[55:13] merit property that fund may be in jeopardy of going under within the next couple of years

[55:22] if we do not do the transfer. So there are a few options there. Some other items do not

[55:32] hit until 27. A couple other items are extraordinarily small.

[55:39] So at least when it comes to the

[55:41] general fund budget,

[55:46] those would probably be the top items which if I had to make any choice,

[55:53] if I was to be forced to make any choice, I would say the debt payment to the soil district,

[56:00] But I just want you to know that if hopefully this does not happen, but if we do not get

[56:09] the sales in the more immediate, it would have the sale proceeds in the more immediate

[56:15] by the time we do have to make the payment in February, that would be coming from reserves

[56:20] at that particular time to cover it until we do get the sale proceeds in.

[56:26] So there's a tiny bit of risk but it makes me just a little uncomfortable and I know it makes the finance director uncomfortable when it's not in the bank per se at the moment and then setting the budget to that prospect.

[56:46] So, all right. Thank you, Councillor Anderson.

[56:51] So it sounds to me that we'd be talking about the desolation of the Broadway Ridge fund,

[56:55] I mean pretty much, because based on the projects that are coming up, that would be exhausted.

[57:00] And the light fund as well, because that's, we're always hitting that for property removals

[57:04] when something comes up. I just don't see those as viable options, and it sounds like they

[57:09] wouldn't reduce the levee by more than a percent. We're already at 5.9. Would that go down

[57:14] down to like 4.9 and 4.7 probably.

[57:19] Thank you, honor.

[57:21] Every rough math, every 22,000 is a quarter of a percent.

[57:28] So removing the debt service to the Blazing Star soil district

[57:35] and banking on future sale proceeds would bring it down

[57:43] to get it down to five or just under five at some point.

[57:47] You would probably need about another 25, $28,000 to get it there.

[57:56] And which is the easiest to adjust for and to know the potential outcome would be the transfers to those particular funds.

[58:08] Your Honor.

[58:09] Further discussion.

[58:10] Councillor Christiansen.

[58:11] Thank you.

[58:11] During our work session we asked our building official if he could provide us more information

[58:17] and I'm wondering if he has that available for us about the new build permits or any information

[58:26] on that.

[58:34] Last wait, so answer to come forward.

[58:43] If I understood the earlier question you were looking for the number of new family dwellings

[58:47] built in the last year or the year before.

[58:49] I printed a couple quick reports.

[58:53] In 2024, we had just four new single family homes built.

[59:01] Interesting note, we did have 12 brand new mobile homes put into the Stony Creek estates

[59:08] in 2024, so we had 12 brand new news there, four brand new houses.

[59:13] I couldn't have planned this much better, but 2025 to date, four new homes, and 12 more brand

[59:22] new mobile homes, so that part of the low income housing is private enterprises, take care

[59:29] of that down there, 24 units in two years, so that's what we have so far, so okay, thank you.

[59:37] You're welcome.

[59:37] So thank you. So what that tells us is largely the increase is an increase in valuation not because we've had lots of new residential housing added.

[59:50] More likely than not. Of course it was like 1.6 million new I believe. And depending on the houses, you know there.

[1:00:00] It could be, it could be a lot of that was, and it's just as a matter of information. It doesn't impact how our discussion ends up.

[1:00:14] Thank you, Your Honor. I would say that that report those just on, on new houses that would not be, let's say, anything that would be like additions to, it does not have commercial or any industrial expansion, either which we do know has, has occurred.

[1:00:31] and take in place. So it is a very limited report, which I think if hopefully

[1:00:44] moving forward

[1:00:45] we will be able to get this information as they will have someone through the entire cycle

[1:00:52] of this process in the assessor's office for us to work with to get this information as it comes in in the following years.

[1:00:59] Unfortunately, that did not occur, and so we are at a loss as to how much is based off of permits for new construction, additions, major improvements, and how much of it was straight valuation based off of changes in the market.

[1:01:18] That's your question, Your Honor.

[1:01:20] Are we still going to discuss every one of these additional resolutions as they are presented

[1:01:26] or should we make any comments on them now?

[1:01:30] We'll bring up each resolution individually.

[1:01:34] And then each individually can be discussed if there is any, yes.

[1:01:38] All right.

[1:01:38] Good.

[1:01:39] Thank you.

[1:01:41] I would add though that if there's anything that would have an impact on the actual

[1:01:46] levy itself or any decisions on the levy that may be in the subsequent items that we

[1:01:54] do have that discussion on the subsequent resolutions because the first one in order

[1:01:59] unless you wish to take it out of order and do it last is the resolution on setting the

[1:02:04] levy.

[1:02:09] Councillor Christianson.

[1:02:10] Thank you.

[1:02:11] And I too want to join the others that have expressed their appreciation for people showing

[1:02:16] up and speaking up.

[1:02:18] This is hard.

[1:02:20] It is a difficult time and I think all of us are fully aware that it is not not easy these days financially for so many people.

[1:02:31] The fact is it's not just Albert Lee. You know, you talk about the, you know, what happens and people leave Albert Lee?

[1:02:38] Well, you know what, it's not necessarily any better anywhere else. Right now we are facing some real struggles.

[1:02:44] and I am really the one thing that's good baby that's going to happen from having

[1:02:50] some of these shocking numbers is that people will get more involved and get

[1:02:54] involved earlier and not just at well you know we're most effective at our

[1:03:00] local level but we need to talk to our state representatives we need to speak

[1:03:04] with our federal representatives. We have to rain in things and I am on the

[1:03:11] The Budget Committee, we've worked really hard on this.

[1:03:14] I don't think there is any fluff in this budget.

[1:03:17] Trails, yeah, that, except that's going to be funded largely through grants, not through our levy.

[1:03:25] And if we do this cleanup project on the old merit property, that too, that money is designated with grants.

[1:03:32] So that's not coming out of what we're asking everybody to pay for.

[1:03:36] Those things are also going to be subject to further approval and subject to getting those grant funds.

[1:03:43] So I just know the city, and I want to thank our city staff because they've worked really hard on this.

[1:03:54] And I think we do have a lot of good things going forward.

[1:03:59] sometimes you just have to get through a period of time until our tax base is actually expanding.

[1:04:07] And once we start getting those incomes in, once the tax increment financing starts rolling

[1:04:16] through, we are going to benefit from all of this. But yeah, I know it's painful right now,

[1:04:22] and I feel it too. And I want to thank everybody for being here and having their words with us.

[1:04:30] Okay. Additional discussion.

[1:04:36] Hearing none then, I would take a motion, or a resolution established in the tax

[1:04:41] library for 2026.

[1:04:45] So moved, Your Honor.

[1:04:46] Motion by Councillor Anterson, is there a second?

[1:04:51] I'll second that, Your Honor.

[1:04:53] Councillor Christensen, is there any further discussion, Your Honor?

[1:04:57] Councillor Howell.

[1:04:57] So I'll just say kind of what some of the other Councillors have already said, you know, people

[1:05:02] are struggling right now.

[1:05:03] It's really tough and adding this on top isn't easy for for any of us

[1:05:11] You know just like all of you and like Councillor Baker said we pay taxes to we got the state the same sticker shot when we got the

[1:05:19] The thing in the mail from the county

[1:05:22] So I own two properties

[1:05:24] One property the value on it stayed the same and my city taxes actually went down

[1:05:29] which was fantastic. Unfortunately, that property, the value on that property, isn't close to what the value of the other property is that skyrocketed and the valuation went up big time and the city taxes obviously went up because of that valuation increased too.

[1:05:48] That's not enough. That's on the county assessor's office, so I know we've repeated that many times.

[1:05:54] tax rates actually lower now for the city this year compared to last year a lot of that is because of

[1:06:00] increased tax base, but it's also because of the increased valuations of the properties. So

[1:06:08] originally when we passed the preliminary levy at 8%, we couldn't go above that. I said I wouldn't

[1:06:15] approve any levy increase that wasn't a significant decrease from that 8%, I think I threw out a

[1:06:22] number of like around 5% so since this is at 5.9 I will be in favor of it but it's

[1:06:29] a tough pill to swallow and you know the economy stinks right now and there's a lot of

[1:06:35] talk about affordability and it's difficult and raising taxes makes it even more difficult

[1:06:43] and it's not just the city. Counties raising your taxes the school districts raising your

[1:06:47] taxes the HRA is asking for more taxes and other organizations so we're one

[1:06:55] piece of it and I think 5.9% I'm in favor of it ultimately I wish it was at

[1:07:02] 0% but we're not there thank you. Additional discussion you're not answer

[1:07:08] Baker I just I just have a question on what councilor Anderson brought up to ask

[1:07:13] the city manager. So that I know it's not a lot of percentage points, and you say it's a small risk,

[1:07:24] but I don't know, isn't a small risk worth taking it to shave a few more points off?

[1:07:30] I mean, I'm just asking the question. You know, and I served on the text for me for three years,

[1:07:34] so I understand what all you guys have gone through. But I know it isn't a lot, but you know,

[1:07:42] anything that we can do to help. I think that's an important way to look at it.

[1:07:48] At least my view, I'm not speaking for everybody else.

[1:07:54] City manager?

[1:07:56] Again, if you're talking about the soil district debt payment that would bring it down to 5.3

[1:08:04] that is about a $53,000 amount that would, if the sale proceeds do not come in time,

[1:08:13] it will have to come out of some sort of reserve, or it basically have to come out of reserve,

[1:08:19] which would be general fund, which we do have room, but again, because of what we're dealing

[1:08:25] with with blight, what we're dealing with with TIFF and the 300 block, all of that does

[1:08:32] make us a little nervous, you know, looking out, but I would say that the one

[1:08:38] advantage to that is that it's intended to be temporary because there's an

[1:08:41] agreement that's put in place where they have to eventually start paying the

[1:08:46] increment based off of a certain value regardless whether the building is built

[1:08:51] or how it's built or what comes out of the assessment there. They're locked in at

[1:08:56] making a payment, which will cover that moving forward.

[1:09:00] So it is a temporary pain on the levy, but if the council wishes to move forward now

[1:09:11] with that, that is a possibility.

[1:09:14] I just want to make sure the council is aware of any potential risks to the reward of

[1:09:18] doing so.

[1:09:19] but eventually they're going to have to pay that anyway correct correct okay so it's just a

[1:09:28] matter of when we'll see that money and so if we went into the reserves and got it when they get

[1:09:33] that when they get paid we'll just put that money back into the reserves correct I believe I'm

[1:09:41] following what you're saying yes but like I said it's we are nervous about it but it is a it is

[1:09:48] possible. I mean, I'd like to see you go that way to be real honest with you. That's

[1:09:53] mine. That's my opinion. I believe that if someone were to do that, they would ask for

[1:10:00] an amendment on that, on the motion in second. I'm possibly here on, I'm sorry. I'm possibly

[1:10:09] willing to amend my motion, if there's a consensus with that, but I'd like to hear what

[1:10:13] Christie's thoughts are on that as well.

[1:10:14] Our finance director, I think that would be a prudent ask.

[1:10:23] Finance director, Christie Brutland.

[1:10:25] So Ian and I, I mean, Ian and I did have a discussion about the soil district

[1:10:30] and whether we could hold off a year.

[1:10:33] I think that if, I think it would make me feel a little better,

[1:10:38] I mean, if it happens that we can't get it for 26,

[1:10:42] then I worry, well, what about the rest of the, you know,

[1:10:45] If it starts, if whatever the money we're waiting for,

[1:10:50] we don't get it in 26, are we gonna have a risk in 27, 28?

[1:10:54] So I think that, I think it's a calculated risk

[1:11:00] and I think that if, I would say we should probably

[1:11:04] amend and say that if the funds don't come in in 20, 26,

[1:11:08] that we're expecting that we kind of have a backup plan

[1:11:13] we're going to pay for that is what I would say. Am I okay with it?

[1:11:22] Yeah, I think I'd be okay with that.

[1:11:25] Cost for all. So would be safe. Say if these funds don't come in, we're kicking the can, and we're probably.

[1:11:30] So I think we're ready to stick to you about that same.

[1:11:32] So it's 53. We're looking at $53,000 correct. I mean, you could put in the resolution that if those funds don't come in in 2026,

[1:11:40] that you're going to make that payment with and then designate a fund to make that payment from.

[1:11:47] And there is some room in Fund 401, we could take it from, I'm a little hesitant on the general fund,

[1:11:53] but I think that would be a great use of Fund 401, which does have some excess funds right now.

[1:11:59] Any manager? Excuse me, thank you, Your Honor.

[1:12:02] I do not know if we have any of the debt service fund that would be in excess of what we need

[1:12:10] to hold anymore. Okay, the finance director shaking your head. No, so all right. So that

[1:12:16] would probably be the resources. I don't think we had to draw out of the building maintenance

[1:12:20] fund like we had to. We could pull it out of the building maintenance fund if that happened.

[1:12:27] I would, I would just hesitate making up that payment with the general fund just because

[1:12:34] of all the other things that are going on in the general fund.

[1:12:40] I would be willing to amend my motion with my original motion, but I also would like to say with that amendment that even if we drop this from 5.9 to 5.3 to 0, most people's property decks are still going to go up because the city's portion of this is very small, but I think it's important for the public to see that we take this seriously, and I will amend my emotion to remove that $53,000 soil district so that we can bring a levy from 5.9 to 5.3.

[1:13:08] Okay, so the resolution should be the debt levy should be $2,700,000.

[1:13:16] The general fund levy will stay at $6533 and the total general fund of debt levy should

[1:13:21] be $9,233.

[1:13:23] I'm looking at debt levy.

[1:13:24] But she said so moved.

[1:13:26] Did you get it?

[1:13:27] Did you get it?

[1:13:29] So again, the debt levy should be $2,700,000.

[1:13:34] The general fund levy will be $6,500,000.

[1:13:36] three for a total general fund in debt levy of 9,233,000, which is an increase of 5.3%.

[1:13:49] All right, so we have amended motion. Who had the second time that was a concert question.

[1:13:55] Okay, are you good with that amendment?

[1:13:59] I would have preferred to stay with the original, but I will okay that. I think what it points to.

[1:14:09] and this is something I want to bring up is there's a lot of moving parts in the

[1:14:15] budget thing. I want us to continue our budget committee meetings starting in

[1:14:20] January or early February. I don't want us to wait until June to start again.

[1:14:28] There's we will lose the momentum that we currently have because we've been

[1:14:32] focused on this intently so I want to continue meeting so I don't know if that

[1:14:36] that needs a separate motion or how we get that added in but I do absolutely want to

[1:14:42] do that.

[1:14:43] I think we just make sure that we do that next year in City Manager.

[1:14:48] I would suggest that when we appoint committees we put something together to that fact in

[1:14:53] the resolution.

[1:14:55] Okay.

[1:14:58] All right.

[1:14:58] Okay, so we have an-

[1:15:00] amended. Resolution for the tax liability for 2026 that has a first and second. Any further discussion by the council? Your honor. Councilor Ben B. I have said on the budget committee this year, I'm a first year council member, so I've been, it's been trial by fire. And I like John, I'm not a public speaker. I do not support the tax liability for 2026, mostly due to the general fund budget and the capital improvement plan.

[1:15:29] And in this past week, I asked some questions regarding the GIS position.

[1:15:35] I have not had any response on that.

[1:15:39] I asked about a detailed plan on the city center remodel.

[1:15:47] I have not seen anything on that.

[1:15:49] And then I'm going to say, right now, I do oppose working from home.

[1:15:53] I asked the question about the staff on how many people are working from home.

[1:15:58] what departments and the justification of why they are working from home.

[1:16:03] The only reason I realized rationalization I got that is that it was started in the pandemic and the pandemic is over.

[1:16:13] You know, times are tight for everybody, times are tough.

[1:16:16] And I think us as elected officials and city staff, we need to take that very seriously and listen to our constituents in this matter.

[1:16:23] here. So I will be voting no on a few items this evening and that is where I'm at.

[1:16:31] Thank you. Thank you. Further discussion from the council.

[1:16:38] Hearing none, we have an amended

[1:16:39] motion and a second on the floor. Clerk, please call the roll.

[1:16:46] Councillor Baker.

[1:16:47] Aye. Councillor Holland. Aye. Councillor Olson. Aye.

[1:16:50] Aye.

[1:16:50] Councillor Van Beek.

[1:16:51] Aye.

[1:16:54] Councillor Anderson.

[1:16:55] Aye.

[1:16:56] Councillor Mayor Murray.

[1:16:58] Aye.

[1:16:59] I'm sorry.

[1:16:59] I can't call it.

[1:17:00] Councillor Cresson.

[1:17:01] Aye.

[1:17:02] Motion carries.

[1:17:05] Item 2 is a resolution of proving the elderly housing and redevelopment authority.

[1:17:10] Final property tax levy for fiscal year 2026.

[1:17:16] I would entertain a resolution to approve this levy.

[1:17:20] Councillor Baker.

[1:17:20] here. Your honor. Thank you. You read my mind. First of all, I just want to talk about

[1:17:28] this a little bit before I make a motion. Can I get a motion first? Okay. All right.

[1:17:33] I want to make a motion to approve the HRA redevelopment authority. Final property level

[1:17:41] are levy to instead of 266,000 I want to go to two or 125,000 I'll make that more okay. So we have a

[1:17:52] motion amending the resolution for the housing authority to 125,000 instead of 266 is there a second?

[1:18:01] I will second. Second by Councillor Anderson. All right. No discussion. Councillor Baker. Now I can

[1:18:07] finish what I was going to say. I had a conversation and I've been thinking about this because I've

[1:18:11] been hearing from, you know, I've been hearing from people just like we all have about

[1:18:15] the taxes and the increase in the tax liability. And one of the things that we are trying

[1:18:23] to do is this community sees our shortage in housing and the HRA is trying to help, you

[1:18:31] know, improve that along with the city and other people in this community. One of the things

[1:18:37] that I had a conversation with the executive director, Dr. Mitchell yesterday, and I just

[1:18:44] mentioned to her the fact that, you know, the way the taxes and stuff are going with

[1:18:48] everybody, can we, I think it would be a good idea to lower this to 125 and she agreed.

[1:18:57] So that's why we're doing it.

[1:18:59] One of the things I would like to know from the city manager, being that this is lowered

[1:19:04] to 125 percentage points that we're looking at. I mean, I know that doesn't go with the city,

[1:19:11] but it's still a percentage that will be taken away from the taxes. So what is that like 1.1%

[1:19:18] or something like that? Probably one and a half. Pretty close.

[1:19:26] In comparison to the city levy, it would be equivalent to about a one-point

[1:19:34] I want to say six, reduction there because it's a hundred and forty-one thousand, so about

[1:19:45] one point six, one point seven, it'd be equivalent to one point seven percent decrease to our

[1:19:51] levy is what its equivalent would be.

[1:19:54] Okay, so that helped decrease the R part of the levy anyway, so about two point two percent.

[1:20:01] If my math is correct, I think it is okay. All right. I appreciate that and then one one other thing too. I think I I would like to see

[1:20:15] Something you know, we were looking for

[1:20:18] Filming the housing gap and then we have people here that are investing in the

[1:20:25] Housing as owners of

[1:20:28] of apartment complexes and stuff and if we get to the point where their taxes are pushing

[1:20:35] them out of the business of reinvesting in our community, I think we need to maybe take

[1:20:42] a look at that and see what we can do if anything to help them. I think that's pretty important

[1:20:48] for us because of the goal that we have to fill the housing needs that we have in this community

[1:20:53] to get people to come here, to live why they work in some of the new businesses that have opened.

[1:21:00] I think that would show a good, it would be a good note toward trying to help everybody in this community keep investing and moving forward.

[1:21:14] All right. Thank you. Additional discussion.

[1:21:16] You're welcome.

[1:21:16] Councillor Anderson.

[1:21:18] This is something that I mentioned in the work session, but I'm sure there's a wider audience right now.

[1:21:21] It's worth noting that last year's HRA Levy, a portion of that was meant to pay for the facade.

[1:21:27] The work that they've done down there, if anybody's driven by that, they can see that a lot of stuff has been done.

[1:21:33] But we got a lot more federal funds to take care of that, maybe end up using the HRA Levy last year for that.

[1:21:39] The initial thought was to put that money towards these redevelopment projects that we have.

[1:21:43] Because I think this is really exciting that we can fill in some of these holes,

[1:21:45] some of these empty lots that are littered around town that's, you know, water and sewer is sitting out

[1:21:50] front being unused and, you know, nobody's paying property tax here yet. Somebody's still plowing

[1:21:55] the road in front of it. It would be great to fill a lot of these holes for everybody. Broaden that

[1:21:59] base even further for next year without increasing property values to do it. But yeah, so I just

[1:22:05] think that this is one of the things that we have control of a very small part of people's tax

[1:22:09] increases and we're doing what we can. So I'm definitely supporting that. Which is why I seconded it.

[1:22:15] Thank you.

[1:22:17] Additional discussion.

[1:22:18] Your Honor.

[1:22:19] Councillor Holland.

[1:22:20] I'm going to vote no on this one, and it all comes down to transparency for me.

[1:22:27] So we're being asked to take more money out of the taxpayers' pockets for the HRA for a project

[1:22:35] that we don't have a plan and we don't know the finances.

[1:22:41] We don't know how much is in what they already have in their fund.

[1:22:44] We just, you know, in previous HRA levees, there's been a project involved whether it's

[1:22:50] the facade for the building or whatever, but just in general to take more taxpayer money

[1:22:56] give it to the HRA for redevelopment or whatever it is, but no specific plan or project.

[1:23:04] I just, I'm not comfortable doing that.

[1:23:08] So, and especially, you know, we haven't had the directors and ever been here from HRA to present

[1:23:13] to the council. Why not come and tell us about the things that you want to do with that tax payer money?

[1:23:20] And do they really need it? If they're so willing to chop it in half just with Councillor Baker

[1:23:28] going and asking her, I just don't think I'm just not comfortable with the levies. So what about

[1:23:37] I don't know.

[1:23:38] Councilor Baker, in reference to your, you know, when I understand how you feel and however you vote, you vote.

[1:23:46] But one of the things we do have a plan, and I think I talked about this briefly in the last meeting, but we do have a plan to put up a duplex.

[1:23:56] A three-bedroom duplex with bedroom in the basement, and it would be, it would be have single garages for it.

[1:24:03] with it and one of the things that we're working with is trying to get housing that's going to be within the

[1:24:13] range that most working force people can get afford and we're looking at these will be maybe

[1:24:20] 210 to 120 thousand dollars in their nice units. So we do have a plan

[1:24:25] This has been a long time coming. We've had had a lot of

[1:24:29] a lot of hills and valleys to go through to get to where we're at but now, now this is

[1:24:36] where we're going and the only reason I called her is because, and I'm the chair, I got

[1:24:43] to thinking about this.

[1:24:46] We don't need that much money for this year. I mean, as soon

[1:24:52] as we get these things going, hopefully we'll have this thing done. The plan is to do

[1:25:10] the last couple of meetings but that's where we're at on that and so I just wanted to open that up and let people understand that we do have plans. We are going to be working with the city.

[1:25:25] We are going to bring it up at our next meeting to help the city with this money and the redeveloped redevelopment fund for the blight that we incur as the city and some of these houses that need to be taken down.

[1:25:42] So it's not that we're just collecting money and not doing anything with it.

[1:25:45] We have plans for it and we're going to push these forward and we're going to get some things done.

[1:25:50] Thank you, Your Honor.

[1:25:51] Thank you.

[1:25:52] Any other discussion?

[1:25:53] I just wanted to branch off of a concert maker.

[1:25:59] It's absolutely true that over the last several years,

[1:26:01] I've been on the HR Board for a couple of years now.

[1:26:03] And we had a lot of turnover.

[1:26:04] There was in-between directors.

[1:26:06] We were there for quite a while.

[1:26:07] So there's definitely a concert hall.

[1:26:10] It's right there's been a lack of a plan, lack of vision forward.

[1:26:13] Just when we're getting that vision on track,

[1:26:15] I don't want to deprive them of the funds that they might need.

[1:26:18] And I think it's great that we can maybe get by with a little bit less

[1:26:20] that's because they do have some set aside already.

[1:26:23] But this idea, I think if the city manager would correct me,

[1:26:26] I think we're setting $75,000 aside in the blight fund this year,

[1:26:29] is that correct?

[1:26:30] City manager.

[1:26:32] Actually, we are transferring, I believe,

[1:26:34] 100,000 to the blight fund in order to keep it solvent

[1:26:39] for the next few years.

[1:26:41] So that's 1.2% probably roughly on our levy.

[1:26:44] And if we get away from the HRE in the future,

[1:26:46] to take care of that blight fund, as we tear down a house

[1:26:49] That's fallen in disrepair. We just put up another right away without having to collapse in the foundation keeping that already set

[1:26:56] It's possible and not I don't know exactly what the details would be

[1:26:59] But I think that could save the city some money in the future and that's a part of this long-term plan that maybe hasn't fully

[1:27:05] materialized yet here on it. All right any other discussion?

[1:27:09] Councillor Holland

[1:27:10] Did we ever get a number for what is in the HRA fund that they've accumulated over the many years with the levies

[1:27:18] like, do we know what that number is, what they have in the coffers already?

[1:27:22] That's never been presented to the councils.

[1:27:24] Councillor Baker?

[1:27:25] Yeah, I think I've mentioned it a couple of times.

[1:27:27] Right now, I think it's like 650.

[1:27:30] And we're looking at these houses, they're going to be 300, about 300,000 for the duplexes.

[1:27:38] And so if this happens, I mean, when this happens and say these are on the market and they

[1:27:45] sell right away, we're going to want to be able to be in a position so we can do some

[1:27:50] more because we do have more vacant lots that we can use and hit them back and do the

[1:27:58] tax base too. All right.

[1:28:01] Constra van Beek.

[1:28:02] Your Honor, thank you. I also sit on the HRA board and new home permits in 2025 or four

[1:28:09] homes. That's concerning. That's not getting ahead of the problem. I'm normally very

[1:28:15] and that's well known. I do support 125 because that's, that's concerning. You know, we need to get in front of this and get some housing built here, not really. So I will be supporting this.

[1:28:29] Thank you. Well put. Mr Baker, I have one more thing.

[1:28:33] Please.

[1:28:43] We're going to have some, we're going to have some, we're going to have some money your way.

[1:28:57] That'll be it, Your Honor.

[1:28:58] All right. And just to note on that one, there's probably some legal

[1:29:02] things that we have to figure out first because when you put money into the

[1:29:06] Blight Fund and you tear something down you have to replace it is what we're

[1:29:11] thinking and so let us you know let the city manager and our attorney dig into

[1:29:15] that a little bit before you make any promises there well we're gonna we're gonna

[1:29:21] bring it up yes that's fine okay here we know for the discussion we have an

[1:29:26] amended motion on the floor to go for 125,000 for the HRA instead of the 266

[1:29:32] Clerk, please call the roll.

[1:29:36] Councillor Holland.

[1:29:37] No.

[1:29:38] Councillor Olson?

[1:29:40] Aye.

[1:29:40] Councillor Van Beek.

[1:29:41] Aye.

[1:29:42] Councillor Anderson.

[1:29:43] Aye.

[1:29:44] Councillor Crescentson.

[1:29:45] Aye.

[1:29:46] I think Councillor Baker?

[1:29:47] Aye.

[1:29:47] Mayor Murray.

[1:29:48] Aye.

[1:29:49] Motion carries.

[1:29:50] Item 3 is a resolution adapting the 2026 general fund budget with someone like to make a

[1:29:57] motion.

[1:29:59] Zoom.

[1:30:00] Moved, your honor. Motion by Councillor Anderson, is there a second? Second, your honor. Second by Councillor Baker. Any further discussion on the resolution adopting the 2026 general fund budget?

[1:30:17] Never mind. Okay.

[1:30:21] Very none. Clerk, please call the roll. Councillor Olson. Aye. Councilor Van Bake. Aye. Councillor Anderson. Aye. Councillor Christianson. Aye. Councillor Baker. Aye. Councillor Holland. Aye.

[1:30:33] I'm motion carries item 4 is a resolution adopting the 2026 to 2030 capital improvement plan. Could I get a motion on adopting this?

[1:30:44] Councillor Christensen. Your honor, I'd like to make a resolution adopting the 2026 to 2030 capital improvement plan but removing all the city center projects for further approval.

[1:30:58] Okay, we have a motion on the floor, amending the capital improvement plan by removing the

[1:31:05] city center projects. Is there a second to that?

[1:31:08] I'll start.

[1:31:10] Yeah, because it's a second.

[1:31:14] Second by Councillor Van B. Okay, city manager.

[1:31:17] Could I get clarification when you say removal to further approval because what you're saying

[1:31:24] As you're removing it from the capital budget completely, when you say removal from the, so are you saying pending further council approval?

[1:31:33] Yes.

[1:31:35] Okay, I just, I wanted to make sure that, thank you.

[1:31:39] Yes, sorry, because we do not have complete information yet.

[1:31:43] Correct.

[1:31:44] And so, rather than have piecemeal parts of it in the budget or the capital improvement plan, I would like it all to be requiring further

[1:31:54] council approval.

[1:31:57] I was actually going to suggest something similar that there's

[1:32:01] already a hundred thousand dollar thing that limit anything over that comes back

[1:32:05] to the city council for approval and almost everything in that project is

[1:32:09] going to be over a hundred thousand dollars so we're going to get another look at

[1:32:12] all that stuff anyways but in case there is anything that falls under that I was

[1:32:16] going to make a similar motion so this is this is good then it will come up for

[1:32:19] debate and it'll be more in the public light rather than just in a long-term

[1:32:22] from capital plan, so I will be supporting it.

[1:32:25] Further discussion?

[1:32:27] City manager.

[1:32:28] Can we make sure that the, I believe as Councillor Van Bick

[1:32:32] made the second, that that was also his intention,

[1:32:37] or he wishes to withdraw his second?

[1:32:40] I want to withdraw.

[1:32:41] You would like to withdraw your motion, okay?

[1:32:44] Councillor Van Bick is going to withdraw his motion.

[1:32:46] Is there a second to the motion?

[1:32:48] Oh, second.

[1:32:49] Councillor Anderson is going to make a second to the motion

[1:32:52] made by concert Christians. Okay. Any further discussion?

[1:32:59] Yes, Your Honor.

[1:33:00] I'll start on Vick. I will not be supporting this capital improvement plan. There's too

[1:33:05] many unanswered questions for me regarding many different aspects. I didn't even go into the idea

[1:33:11] of electric vehicles being used here in Minnesota. No matter what brand they are, I am opposed to it.

[1:33:19] I firmly believe that if we do go with those types of vehicles, we should at least purchase

[1:33:26] them of a dealer, you know, through the state process, however, we can have one of our

[1:33:32] local dealerships be able to do the warranty work and the service.

[1:33:36] Right.

[1:33:38] For the discussion.

[1:33:42] Right.

[1:33:43] So we have a motion on the floor, on the capital improvement plan, removing for future

[1:33:48] discussion the City Hall project and a second requiring all City Hall center projects get further discussion for the discussion and separate approval.

[1:34:01] Right. That's what I was trying to say.

[1:34:05] So the City Center projects are still in the capital approval plan.

[1:34:09] They're in but all of them would require a second level approval even those under a hundred thousand. Okay, so

[1:34:16] They're still in the CIP

[1:34:18] Correct. Okay any for the discussion or we good with that motion and second

[1:34:26] Clerk, please call the roll

[1:34:28] Councillor Bambique name

[1:34:31] Councilor Anderson aye

[1:34:34] Councillor Christiansen aye, aye, aye, aye, sir Holland

[1:34:38] No

[1:34:39] Councilor Olson.

[1:34:40] Aye.

[1:34:41] Mayor Murray.

[1:34:43] Aye. Motion carries.

[1:34:44] Item 5 is a resolution of mending the fee schedules for 2026.

[1:34:49] Council?

[1:34:50] Moved approved, Your Honor.

[1:34:51] Motion by Councillor Baker.

[1:34:53] Is there a second?

[1:34:54] Okay.

[1:34:55] I want to amend.

[1:34:56] Yep.

[1:34:56] Just wait.

[1:34:57] Oh, you want to amend it?

[1:34:58] I want to amend the...

[1:35:00] What is it?

[1:35:01] Off sale?

[1:35:03] On sale?

[1:35:03] On sale.

[1:35:04] There's a resolution for that later.

[1:35:06] Okay.

[1:35:06] All right.

[1:35:09] All right.

[1:35:09] I'll make a motion.

[1:35:11] Do we want to make that amendment?

[1:35:13] We make that amendment on the actual resolution.

[1:35:15] Look at it on the agenda.

[1:35:17] You're on.

[1:35:17] Okay.

[1:35:18] All right.

[1:35:19] So we're going to we've got a motion.

[1:35:21] Is there a second?

[1:35:23] Second.

[1:35:24] Second by Councillor Christiansen.

[1:35:25] Any further discussion?

[1:35:27] All

[1:35:33] right.

[1:35:33] Hearing none, clerk, please call the roll.

[1:35:35] Councillor Anderson.

[1:35:36] Aye.

[1:35:37] Councillor Christiansen.

[1:35:37] Aye.

[1:35:38] Councillor Baker.

[1:35:38] Aye.

[1:35:39] Aye.

[1:35:39] That's our halloween.

[1:35:40] Aye.

[1:35:40] Mr. Olson.

[1:35:41] Aye.

[1:35:41] Mr. Van B.

[1:35:42] Aye.

[1:35:43] You may agree.

[1:35:44] Aye.

[1:35:44] Motion carries.

[1:35:45] Item 6 is a resolution adopting the 2026 water sewer solid waste and airport budgets.

[1:35:51] Council.

[1:35:53] Move to approve.

[1:35:54] Motion by Councillor Anderson.

[1:35:55] Is there a second?

[1:35:55] Second fact, Your Honor.

[1:35:56] Seconded by Councillor Olson.

[1:35:58] Any further discussion?

[1:36:00] Your Honor.

[1:36:01] Councillor Anderson.

[1:36:02] It's worth mentioning for our wider audience what we discussed at the work session.

[1:36:06] The water and sewer funds.

[1:36:07] especially the sewer fund, there's $11 million in there, it looks like we don't need a 7% increase.

[1:36:11] But again, this is all about planning ahead because at some point our waste water treatment plan is going

[1:36:17] to be a huge increase and I think it's physically responsible for the city to make small increases,

[1:36:22] bank up the money so it's not as much of a shock.

[1:36:24] It would be much worse had the tab, a future council have to approve a 40% increase in those funds,

[1:36:30] just to make up for what we didn't plan for in this time.

[1:36:33] So all right, thank you. Any further discussion?

[1:36:38] Clerk, please call the roll.

[1:36:40] Mr. Kurshenson.

[1:36:41] Aye.

[1:36:42] Councillor Baker.

[1:36:42] Aye.

[1:36:43] Councillor Holland.

[1:36:44] Aye.

[1:36:44] Councillor Olson.

[1:36:45] Aye.

[1:36:45] Councillor Vandy.

[1:36:46] Aye.

[1:36:48] Councillor Anderson.

[1:36:49] Aye.

[1:36:49] Hi, motion carries.

[1:36:52] Item B is an ordinance to rezone the land use map from single-family residents are one to industrial district I2 for PID.

[1:37:00] 34.435.0090, first reading, city manager.

[1:37:08] With me, your honor.

[1:37:14] Okay, Albert Lee Economic Development Agency, also known as LIDA has applied to Rezone PID 34.435.0090.

[1:37:24] No address from single-family residents to industrial district I2.

[1:37:29] In order to effectively plan for future businesses and development or expansion, the property

[1:37:34] directly but to the south also known as the Alita property and the remaining

[1:37:38] port Authority number three or Alita Jobs Park currently zoned industrial

[1:37:43] district which illuminates concerns about spot zoning. Port Authority

[1:37:49] plate number three was platted in 2010 as a continuation of the jobs

[1:37:54] parks. Its development included road infrastructure utilities and regional

[1:37:58] retention ponds which has tracked a new industrial user such as vortex called

[1:38:02] storage, design ready controls and green acres milling.

[1:38:07] As the park has filled over time, the available parcel to the north is a reasonable location

[1:38:11] for expansion, given the existing roadways and available utilities, the Plan Commission

[1:38:16] held a hearing on December 2nd, and after considering the staff report in addition to the public

[1:38:22] testimony, the Commission recommends approval based on the following that rezoning the property

[1:38:26] will not have an adverse effect on the existing adjacent properties as the area is largely

[1:38:30] industrial and the uses meet the general zoning requirements of the industrial park now just for

[1:38:37] those listening now. There was more discussion at the work session in which there was discussion

[1:38:45] about as for its abutment to residential property that increases certain setback requirements,

[1:38:53] certain lighting requirements and certain sign requirements as well in the facility so it will not

[1:38:58] be able to function just as, I would say, as openly as it would if it was an industrial

[1:39:04] property next to other industrial properties or commercial properties.

[1:39:09] So there are some added restrictions in consideration for its abutment to residential property.

[1:39:15] And other concerns as for utilities or infrastructure, those that would be infrastructure improvements

[1:39:24] that would be directly related to industrial use, as opposed to residential use, would be considered

[1:39:31] separate from what would be normally charged or assessed during a residential road replacement.

[1:39:41] Councillor, move to approve your honor.

[1:39:43] Councillor Christianson, is there a second?

[1:39:46] I'll second.

[1:39:46] Second by Councillor Baker, any further discussion?

[1:39:50] Councillor Anderson.

[1:39:51] I would just like to say that this is in my ward and I've had a lot of pushback on this, a lot

[1:39:54] not a cause, a lot of interested parties and concerned people.

[1:39:57] I certainly share their concerns with this, I will not be supporting it at this time.

[1:40:02] I would also invite the people that are against it.

[1:40:04] If they want some of these details that we just discussed and they weren't able to participate

[1:40:08] in the work session, just give me a call and we can continue to discuss it.

[1:40:12] Thank you.

[1:40:14] Councillor Baker.

[1:40:15] Just one thing and I bring this up a lot, when we have the industrial around the residential

[1:40:20] residential areas that we make sure that there's adequate screening for the people that will be across the street from this on the entrance.

[1:40:30] So if just so, they don't have to look at nothing but an industrial building.

[1:40:37] I mean, something to soften it up a little bit.

[1:40:42] All right, thank you.

[1:40:43] Further discussion?

[1:40:46] Here are none.

[1:40:47] All in favor, the motion is signified by saying aye.

[1:40:49] Aye. Aye.

[1:40:50] Opposed nay.

[1:40:51] Aye.

[1:40:54] S is 4 to 2.

[1:40:59] Item C is a public hearing related to the city's proposed Broadway Ridge Grant Project

[1:41:06] for 130 North Broadway Avenue.

[1:41:10] We'll open the public hearing with the staff report.

[1:41:13] City manager.

[1:41:15] Thank you, honor.

[1:41:16] Midway Enterprise has submitted a Broadway Ridge Grant renewal.

[1:41:22] Excuse me.

[1:41:22] the reimbursement up to 50% of costs associated with complete real-for-placement and new upper

[1:41:27] story windows which will provide a matching grant of $50,000.

[1:41:31] At the sign that proposed work has not been completed and funds will not be distributed

[1:41:35] into all improvements have been reviewed and inspected by the city's zoning and building

[1:41:40] official for compliance with application requirements.

[1:41:43] Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

[1:41:46] All right, any questions from the council?

[1:41:48] Here he none for the first time would anyone like to speak regarding the resolution for a public hearing related to the city's proposed Broadway Ridge Grant project for 130 North Broadway Avenue.

[1:42:04] For the second time would anyone like to speak for the third time would anyone like to speak.

[1:42:11] We'll close the public hearing.

[1:42:14] I would entertain a resolution approving the Broadway Ridge Grant for 130 North Broadway Avenue.

[1:42:20] move to approve your motion by Councillor Baker is there a second second by

[1:42:24] Councillor Anderson any further discussion all in favor of the motion signify

[1:42:30] by say and I both nay motion carries item D is a public hearing related to the

[1:42:37] city's proposed Broadway Ridge grant project for 137 North Broadway Avenue

[1:42:42] will open the public hearing with the staff report city manager thank you

[1:42:47] 5K properties LLC is submitted a broadly-ridged renewal grant for reimbursement of 250% of

[1:42:54] costs associated with window replacement as well as new front and rear entrances which will

[1:43:00] provide the matching grant to 50,000. At the work session, I said that I thought that maybe

[1:43:05] there was also roof replacement but there is not roof replacement. This is purely the windows

[1:43:10] and the front entrance and rear entrance replacements. Significant improvements have been made to

[1:43:16] to the interior as well, which will be calculated

[1:43:18] into the match of eligible expenses.

[1:43:21] At this time, the proposed work has not been completed

[1:43:23] and the funds will not be distributed

[1:43:25] until all improvements have been reviewed

[1:43:27] and inspected by the city's zoning and building official

[1:43:29] for compliance with application requirements.

[1:43:32] Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

[1:43:36] All right, for the first time,

[1:43:37] would anyone like to speak regarding the public hearing

[1:43:40] related to the city's proposed Broadway Ridge Grant Project

[1:43:43] for 137 North Broadway Avenue.

[1:43:46] For the second time, would anyone like to speak?

[1:43:50] For the third time, would anyone like to speak?

[1:43:53] We will close the public here.

[1:43:55] I would entertain a resolution of proving

[1:43:57] the Broadway-rigged grant for 137 North Broadway Avenue.

[1:44:01] Council?

[1:44:01] Move to prove your honor.

[1:44:02] Motion by Councillor Baker.

[1:44:03] Second?

[1:44:03] Second.

[1:44:04] Second by Councillor Holland.

[1:44:06] Any further discussion or questions from the council?

[1:44:10] Hearing none, all in favour of the motion,

[1:44:11] motion signify by say and I I pose nay motion carries item E is a public hearing regarding housing tax

[1:44:18] abatement on property within the city of Albert Lee 508 milrose circle. We will open the public hearing with the staff report city manager.

[1:44:29] Thank you, honor.

[1:44:31] We have public hearing is required before granting a housing tax abatement for personal 34-404-0080

[1:44:41] zero in the city of Albert Lee for the construction of a new single family home.

[1:44:44] The Bateman will assist in new construction and increase the tax base for the community.

[1:44:49] Staff recommends approval.

[1:44:52] Okay, for the first time, would anyone like to speak regarding the public hearing on the housing tax

[1:44:57] abatement and property within the city of Albert Lee 505.

[1:45:17] Wait, Milrose Circle. For the second time, would anyone like to speak? For the third time, would anyone like to speak? We'll close the public hearing. I would entertain a resolution.

[1:45:29] and authorizing the housing tax abatement on property within the city of

[1:45:33] Albert Lee for the purpose of funding costs for construction of the single

[1:45:36] family home at 508 mill row circle motion by Councillor Holland is there a

[1:45:41] second second by Councillor Anderson. City manager could you ask could you tell us

[1:45:48] how along the abatement is? Yeah it's actually a couple of things I'd like to say

[1:45:53] one is the abatement for new construction at 100% to three years if they do

[1:45:58] certain other items such as it's an infill lot or it is maybe has added green

[1:46:06] efficiencies to it above the standard. There is the potential to get 50% over

[1:46:11] another three years but that is not in this application. Further I'd also like

[1:46:16] to note that we do have abatement for rehab houses that if the values are

[1:46:22] increased over 25%, which I know is something that had been brought up a lot in

[1:46:26] in the public hearing on the budget as it relates to assessments, but if you fix up a property and it increases the value greater than 25%, there is a potential tax abatement that is longer than the three years for new construction, but rather it's six years for rehabilitation.

[1:46:45] So just want to publicly state that as to an option if anyone is interested in improving their properties.

[1:46:53] Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion?

[1:46:58] Hearing none, all in favor of the motion.

[1:47:00] Signified by say and aye.

[1:47:01] Aye.

[1:47:02] Opposed nay.

[1:47:03] Motion carries.

[1:47:05] Item F is a public hearing regarding declaring property without public purpose,

[1:47:09] waiving and planning commission review and authorizing sale of 610, 4th Street East.

[1:47:15] We'll open the public hearing with the staff report.

[1:47:17] City manager.

[1:47:19] Thank you, honor.

[1:47:20] This hearing is to determine if the property at 610, 4th Street East continues to have

[1:47:25] a public use. There has been a proposal sent to the city manager in response to an RFP for

[1:47:30] development of new housing. Ownership by the city is not necessary and converting to affordable

[1:47:37] housing better serves the public's interest. Staff recommends approval.

[1:47:42] Okay, for the first time, would anyone like to speak on the public hearing regarding

[1:47:46] declaring property without public purpose, waiving planning commission review and authorizing sale of

[1:47:51] 610, 4th Street East.

[1:47:58] For the second time, what anyone like to speak?

[1:48:03] For the third time, what anyone like to speak?

[1:48:06] We'll close the public hearing.

[1:48:08] I would entertain a resolution declaring property

[1:48:11] without public purpose, wave planning commission review

[1:48:14] and authorize sale of 610, 4th Street East.

[1:48:18] Council?

[1:48:19] No proof of your honor.

[1:48:20] Most by Councillor Anderson.

[1:48:23] Is there a second?

[1:48:23] Second.

[1:48:25] Second.

[1:48:26] Second by Councillor Christensen.

[1:48:28] Any further discussion?

[1:48:34] Here and none I'd just like to mention I will be abstaining from this vote as I am helping

[1:48:38] the builder work on some of his finances on this.

[1:48:42] With that said, all in favour of the motion signified by saying aye.

[1:48:46] Aye.

[1:48:47] I abstain.

[1:48:48] Any nays?

[1:48:49] Motion carries.

[1:48:51] Item G is a resolution deferring special assessment for certain property based upon age

[1:48:56] or disability. City Manager. Thank you, Your Honor. The property owner of Partial 34.134.002.020,

[1:49:06] or 2417 Marshall Street, Southeast, has applied for deferment regarding the assessment on their

[1:49:12] property for a street project, 2501, the neighborhood improvement project. Staff has reviewed their

[1:49:18] application and the property are qualified based on guidelines established by the city policy.

[1:49:22] the staff recommends approval.

[1:49:24] Council.

[1:49:25] Move the approval.

[1:49:26] Motion by Councillor Baker, is there a second?

[1:49:28] Second.

[1:49:29] Second by Councillor Howell, and any further discussion?

[1:49:33] Hearing none, I want to favor the motion,

[1:49:34] signify by say and aye.

[1:49:36] Aye.

[1:49:36] Opposed nay.

[1:49:37] Motion carries.

[1:49:38] Item H is a resolution ordering preparation

[1:49:40] of the feasibility reports for the 2026 improvements.

[1:49:45] City manager.

[1:49:46] Thank you, honor.

[1:49:48] We have a resolution ordering feasibility reports

[1:49:49] for 2026 improvements.

[1:49:50] Since these resolutions would order the preparation of the reports for improvements proposed for the 2026 construction season, the projects are in the CIP and have been reviewed and prioritized by the City Council.

[1:50:04] These projects would be the Valley Avenue Marshall Street Reconstruction Project, the 2026 Neighborhood Improvement Project, the 2026 State Aid Street Overlay Projects, Saint Mary, Project 2603, which is Saint Mary and 14 Street Reconstruction Project.

[1:50:21] job 2604, sorenson, road, water, main, replacement project, and the lead service line replacement

[1:50:27] project.

[1:50:27] From

[1:50:30] the approval?

[1:50:31] Oh, yes, excuse me.

[1:50:32] Yes, staff recommends approval.

[1:50:34] All right.

[1:50:35] Council.

[1:50:35] Move the approval, Your Honor.

[1:50:36] Motion by Councillor Baker.

[1:50:37] Is there a second?

[1:50:38] Second fact, Your Honor.

[1:50:39] Second by Councillor Olson.

[1:50:40] Any further discussion?

[1:50:43] Hearing none.

[1:50:43] I'll unfair for the motion.

[1:50:44] Signify it by saying aye.

[1:50:46] Aye.

[1:50:46] Opposed nay.

[1:50:47] Motion carries.

[1:50:49] Item aye is a resolution of many.

[1:50:50] the professional agreement with Bolton-Mank Inc. for work order number 4-2025, miscellaneous.

[1:50:57] City manager?

[1:50:59] Thank you, honor.

[1:51:00] The replacement of snow removal equipment building door is in the CIP for year 2027, using a 70-30 state grant.

[1:51:07] In November, Minnesota DOT Aeronautics notified the city that funding for the door replacement project is available.

[1:51:14] At the project could be completed in 2026 instead.

[1:51:17] The project would involve replacing 14-foot doors with one wider door with larger equipment over the years.

[1:51:23] It has become very difficult to enter and exit the building as well as door seasonal equipment.

[1:51:27] The airport had discussed seeking funding for replacement for replacement,

[1:51:32] excuse me, replacement snow removal equipment building which was estimated between 900,000 to 1.1 million.

[1:51:40] The current building is newer and is in good shape, but basically needs the doors replaced in order to fit the equipment.

[1:51:47] This contract is for design services for $35,000 and $96.

[1:51:53] The total project cost is estimated to be $359,500 with $251,650 coming from the state and

[1:52:04] $107,850 coming from the city.

[1:52:08] The state grant will be coming back to the council in early 2026 for final approval and staff recommends approval of this agreement.

[1:52:15] Council move to approve your honor motion by Councillor Anderson is there a second second back your honor second by Councillor Olson any for the discussion your honor

[1:52:23] Councillor Anderson I think it's worth knowing real quick for the public will came up in our work session by moving this forward

[1:52:29] We're insured to get that $251,000 grant and we were going to do it anyways the year after is that correct city manager

[1:52:35] City manager correct and we know we'll actually get the grant funding as opposed to if we waited at 2027

[1:52:41] Okay. Okay. All right. Any other discussion? Here and none. I'm fair with motion signified by say and I.

[1:52:49] Aye. Aye. Opposed nay? Motion carries. Item J is resolution temporarily reducing on sale liquor license fees for 2026 and 2027 city manager.

[1:53:01] Thank you, honor. The increase to on sale and off sale liquor license fees requires a public hearing that hearing was held on November 24th 2025.

[1:53:09] five has been 21 years since the last increase for the on sale liquor license fees.

[1:53:14] When it was increased, it was up to $2,000.

[1:53:18] Adjusting for inflation that amount of $2,000 exceeds $3,400.

[1:53:24] To not raise the fee would have passed costs onto the general public to increase greater

[1:53:28] than $3,400, even if justified against collective costs, would increase the fee beyond its same

[1:53:34] purchasing power in 2021, pardon me, 2004, that is an error.

[1:53:44] Additionally, software advancements may create some efficiencies, not requiring the increase of $3,400 to match inflation.

[1:53:50] And we estimate that $2,800 is what would be necessary for cost and for comparison with other communities.

[1:53:57] At during the workshop, it was recommended that we actually breaking it up into three increments

[1:54:03] in which that if the applicants apply, turn in a full application with all accurate attached

[1:54:14] information such as their insurance accurately, it would by the third Monday of August, so

[1:54:23] So that way it could be passed on the 4th Monday of August by Council, that in 2026 the

[1:54:29] fee amount would be 2200, that in 2027 the amount would be 2400, and in 2028 the amount

[1:54:37] would be 2600.

[1:54:39] I believe was what was asked and when someone makes a motion if they could confirm that.

[1:54:45] This discount only applies for license renewal as there is some efficiency in renewal and

[1:54:52] And also those that submit it's in time as stated, the third Monday of August.

[1:54:58] All right, Council, move to approve.

[1:54:59] Councilor Baker, we're going to move to approve and you're going to add what?

[1:55:03] Well, I'm going to add another year, it was supposed to be 200.

[1:55:07] Can you say all four of them?

[1:55:08] All four.

[1:55:09] Yeah.

[1:55:10] No, just state them.

[1:55:12] 2026.

[1:55:13] 2026 would be 2,600.

[1:55:16] 2222.

[1:55:17] I'm sorry, it's getting late.

[1:55:21] 20, 20, 20, 20, 27 will be 24,

[1:55:26] 100, 20, 28 will be 26 under and 20,

[1:55:29] 29 will go to the full 2800.

[1:55:32] Is that your motion?

[1:55:32] Yes.

[1:55:34] Right.

[1:55:34] Thank you.

[1:55:35] Is there a second?

[1:55:36] I'll second back, Your Honor.

[1:55:37] Second by Councillor Olson.

[1:55:38] Okay.

[1:55:39] Any further discussion?

[1:55:41] Hearing none.

[1:55:42] All in favor of the motion as amended,

[1:55:44] signify by saying aye.

[1:55:46] Aye.

[1:55:46] Paul's name, motion carries.

[1:55:49] Item K as a resolution accepting donations as presented to the City of Albert Lee.

[1:55:53] City Manager.

[1:55:55] Thank you, Your Honor.

[1:55:55] The City of Albert Lee is generally authorized to accept donations pursuant to Minnesota State Statute sections 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens staff recommends acceptance of the following donations as submitted for Council review and approval.

[1:56:09] The State White Health Improvement Partnership, known as SHIP, of Freeborn County is donating the equivalent of 27,000.

[1:56:16] $7.31 and 20 cents for drinking fountains, bike racks, and benches throughout the community.

[1:56:24] Is there a motion?

[1:56:26] Move to approve, Your Honor.

[1:56:27] motion by the Councilor Christensen.

[1:56:28] Is there a second?

[1:56:29] Second, Your Honor.

[1:56:30] Second by Councillor Anderson.

[1:56:31] Any further discussion?

[1:56:33] All in favor, the motion is signified by say-n-i.

[1:56:35] Aye.

[1:56:36] All's name?

[1:56:37] Motion carries.

[1:56:38] Item Al is a resolution authorizing interfund loan for advance of certain cost and connection

[1:56:43] with the recreational facilities and solar projects.

[1:56:47] City manager.

[1:56:48] Thank you, honor.

[1:56:49] The hourly city council approved recreational facility

[1:56:52] and solar projects in 2024 at the approximate cost

[1:56:55] of $12.25 million with the city expecting about $2.455

[1:57:01] million in federal incentives.

[1:57:03] The city bonded for $9.8 million.

[1:57:05] Because the city cannot apply for the federal incentives

[1:57:08] until the projects are complete,

[1:57:10] there will be a gap in funding

[1:57:11] until receiving the incentives.

[1:57:13] With the projects nearing completion, the city has used almost all of the bond proceeds

[1:57:17] and the fund will be a negative balance by December 31, 2025.

[1:57:22] To cover the funding gap, the staff are recommending an inter-fund loan from the sewer fund to

[1:57:29] the recreational facilities fund to cover expenses until receiving the federal incentives.

[1:57:35] Council?

[1:57:36] Move to approve.

[1:57:37] Motion by Councillor Anderson.

[1:57:38] Is there a second?

[1:57:39] Second by Councillor Baker.

[1:57:40] Any further discussion?

[1:57:42] Your Honor.

[1:57:42] Councillor Holy.

[1:57:43] Just a question for the city manager.

[1:57:45] I know it says the city is expecting the nearly 2.5 million in federal incentives.

[1:57:50] Is there any risk at all that the city will not receive?

[1:57:54] Those federal incentives considering the environment right now and our federal government

[1:57:58] in regards to green energy?

[1:58:00] the city manager.

[1:58:03] The recent changes to the inflation reduction act and the incentives that were attached to

[1:58:12] it were passed in what they called the big beautiful bill earlier this year.

[1:58:18] Those changes and those deadlines we do not feel will affect this project that we will be within

[1:58:26] and those timelines and those guidelines for the 40% incentive.

[1:58:35] Okay, thank you.

[1:58:36] Any further discussion?

[1:58:40] Hearing none, I'm in favor of the motion.

[1:58:41] Signified by say aye.

[1:58:43] Aye.

[1:58:44] Opposed, aye.

[1:58:45] Motion carries.

[1:58:46] All right.

[1:58:47] Item 9, Mayor and Council Report.

[1:58:49] It's Councillor Holland.

[1:58:50] 4-3.

[1:58:52] Well, hey, Mr. Mayor.

[1:58:53] Thank you very much.

[1:58:53] Hope everybody had a happy Thanksgiving.

[1:58:55] It is almost 9 o'clock now, so in the interest of time, I'm going to say nothing further.

[1:59:01] How's your Baker?

[1:59:02] Thank you.

[1:59:03] I can't say that.

[1:59:07] But I will say I got a couple of ward items that I will get all that information over to the city manager tomorrow.

[1:59:14] And he can take care of them.

[1:59:16] And we did have a lead meeting this last Wednesday.

[1:59:22] And I'm going to say it again, things are moving forward, you know, there's a lot of promises.

[1:59:28] There's a lot of interest in Albert E still.

[1:59:32] So just trust, trust the fact that eventually you're going to see some more action.

[1:59:39] Thank you.

[1:59:40] All right.

[1:59:41] Word one, Councillor Christensen.

[1:59:42] Thank you.

[1:59:43] I'm going to brief also.

[1:59:45] I do want to just say there's lots of great music going on in our area now in a shout out

[1:59:50] to first Lutheran Church for hosting Billy McLaughlin and simple gifts last night.

[1:59:55] It was a great concert. Thank you. All right, work sex.

[2:00:00] Councilor Anderson. Your Honor, I'm going to abstain and pass the torch. Ward 5, Councilor

[2:00:06] Van Bek. Thank you, Your Honor. I've already used my code of words for this week, so I'm

[2:00:13] going to abstain also. Ward 4, Councilor Ossin. All right, I've got an airport meeting next week.

[2:00:20] I received an email during the meeting tonight, so I'll somebody I look into for somebody

[2:00:25] there. Are there in that? Storms out there, drive safe, give our snow plows plenty of room.

[2:00:31] They get out third, do their best job, and the staff is efficient when they start, when they

[2:00:36] stop. So they're trying to use their time as best they can. So your street's not plowed right

[2:00:41] away. There's a reason why they, why they time it the way they do to be as efficient as possible.

[2:00:48] That's it, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. On the 25th of November, I had to lead a project review

[2:00:54] where we went through everything that we're working on right now and it's quite

[2:00:57] an extensive list. So pretty excited to see the things that Alita continues to

[2:01:02] work on. On the 25th also we had a special meeting working on the search for

[2:01:09] a new executive director with Alita. And then on the 25th I also attended the

[2:01:15] District 241 Facilities meeting. We're looking at just building usage around the

[2:01:22] community. On the 28th and 29th was Black Friday and small business Saturday

[2:01:27] within the community. The snow kind of got in the way a little bit on Saturday,

[2:01:31] but I heard a number of people in the community said they had a very good

[2:01:33] Black Friday and a good partial day on Saturday, but I think the snow got the

[2:01:39] best of a lot of them. So keep supporting your small businesses and

[2:01:42] Albert Lee all through Christmas here and all year round. They need our help.

[2:01:47] People want things to stay open. The only way they do that is if we get out and

[2:01:51] support them. So get out, support your local community by local right here in

[2:01:56] Albert Lee. On the first of December I attended a pro-manufacturing meeting on

[2:02:02] some things they're working on with the city manager and the elite of

[2:02:05] director. And then on the third of December we had a regular meeting with the

[2:02:10] LIDA. And as Councillor Baker mentioned went through a number of projects that

[2:02:15] were working on. We think there's some good announcements that'll be coming

[2:02:18] and forward here over the next several months.

[2:02:21] And we continue to work on more and more things all the time.

[2:02:24] As I remind people all the time,

[2:02:26] Albert Lee is open for business

[2:02:28] and people out there know that.

[2:02:29] And so we're pretty excited about what's going on there.

[2:02:32] And then on Saturday, I worked with Ruby's pantry

[2:02:35] out at the Fairgrounds.

[2:02:37] And for about three hours, we put food together

[2:02:40] and passed out food as cars came along.

[2:02:43] I think we had 200 and some families come through

[2:02:46] and it was a little cold out there to start but we started working hard and

[2:02:50] pretty soon we were warmed up and everything was good so good program I know we

[2:02:54] got some other food banks and things like that going on in the community so

[2:02:57] thank everybody for what they're doing there and thank all the volunteers and the

[2:03:01] people that came and helped us out with Ruby's pantry. With that I had two

[2:03:07] events on a calendar coming up do not forget, Albert Lee Holiday Bizarre is

[2:03:11] this Thursday, December 11 in downtown Albert Lee. The event will go from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.

[2:03:18] with live reindeer, horse-drawn trolley rides and more. The Santa Claus cruise starts at 6 p.m.

[2:03:24] along Broadway and follows the Santa... Santa Cruz, the following Santa Cruz, there will be a

[2:03:29] tree lighting at Central Park with Christmas caroling. And then also it's coming to the end of the

[2:03:35] year and there will be some open seats on the number of city boards and commissions that we have here.

[2:03:41] The board's and openings are the airport advisory board, the advisory planning commission,

[2:03:47] the library advisory board, park and rec advisory board, and the senior center advisory

[2:03:52] board.

[2:03:53] If anyone is interested in serving on one of these boards, the applications are on the

[2:03:58] city website, under boards and commissions, you can learn more about them on the website.

[2:04:04] With that, we'll move along to item 10, city manager report.

[2:04:09] Thank you, I don't have much to report.

[2:04:12] I think a good chunk of the work has been presented and discussed.

[2:04:16] I just want to thank the council members, the public staff.

[2:04:24] This has been a very trying budget.

[2:04:28] I think that there are a lot of factors that are beyond our control.

[2:04:33] And quite frankly, there are a number of people that are taking the brunt of it.

[2:04:37] So this has not been easy, and I think some more appreciation to what everyone has had

[2:04:44] to go through and deal with this and do with the CAND to hold things down as best possible

[2:04:49] is really needed.

[2:04:50] And I do appreciate the Council members and their efforts in working with staff on this.

[2:04:59] In addition to that, I hope that people can make it out on December 20th to the care of

[2:05:04] New Year's celebration at the Albert Lee High School.

[2:05:07] We will be posting a agenda for that in hopes that members of the council will come

[2:05:14] to that event.

[2:05:15] And I believe, Mr. Mayor, you will be speaking as well.

[2:05:19] So please check your calendars Saturday, December 20th for see if you can attend with that

[2:05:27] your honor.

[2:05:28] All right.

[2:05:29] Item 11 is approval of claims A is a resolution of approving claims.

[2:05:32] One is a presentation of claims over 25,000 city manager.

[2:05:37] Thank you, honor.

[2:05:39] We have $30,723.57 to home-serve USA Corp, water and sewer protection plan services, $58,959.13 to BCM construction and corporate payment estimate number eight, led service line replacement project, $59,796 and $0.7 to bring in construction payment estimate number eight for

[2:06:02] Recreational Facilities Project, Arena Lobby, $115,562.43 to MTI Distributing,

[2:06:12] Incorporated, this is the 2025 Torral Ground Master, 410D Parks.

[2:06:19] We have $121,541.15 to H&M Underground Solutions, Payment Estimate Number 3 for Lead

[2:06:32] dollars and 98 cents to Southeast Service Cooperative. This is health insurance.

City Council Meeting 12-8-25

Transcript