[0:08] >> All right, it is 5: O'.

[0:09] Clock. We'll call our special

[0:11] council meeting to order

[0:13] at this time. Roll call. All

[0:15] members are present. We only

[0:16] have one item on the agenda.

[0:18] That is the presentation

[0:19] of the 2026 executive budget.

[0:34] All right, so first I will read

[0:36] my official letter. Citizens,

[0:40] Common Council and City

[0:41] Employees, I'm honored

[0:43] to present the City of

[0:44] Manitowoc 2026 executive budget

[0:46] for your consideration. Our

[0:47] annual budget is more than a

[0:49] financial document. It is a

[0:50] reflection

[0:51] of our city's priorities,

[0:53] values and vision

[0:55] for the future. This year we

[0:56] continue to face challenges

[0:58] that require thoughtful

[0:59] stewardship of taxpayer dollars

[1:00] and a commitment

[1:01] to transparency and a focus on

[1:02] strategic investments that will

[1:03] benefit MAK for years

[1:04] to come. Going

[1:06] into the budget this year, I

[1:07] had some key priorities and

[1:08] initiatives that I shared with

[1:10] department heads and staff and

[1:13] that I kept in mind as we were

[1:14] putting together. The 2026

[1:16] budget first was investing

[1:17] in our employees. We remain

[1:19] committed to retaining,

[1:20] attracting and supporting our

[1:21] dedicated city staff. 2026

[1:22] budget includes a 3% increase

[1:23] in compensation

[1:24] for non-represented employees,

[1:26] a 5% increase for the police

[1:28] union and a 4% increase

[1:32] for the fire union.

[1:34] Maintaining fiscal discipline,

[1:36] we continue our practice

[1:37] of paying off more of the

[1:38] City's outstanding general debt

[1:40] obligation than the proposed

[1:41] borrowing. The 2026 budget

[1:42] proposes $7.2 million

[1:44] in borrowing for critical

[1:45] infrastructure and capital

[1:47] projects while prioritizing

[1:48] debt management and responsible

[1:49] spending. Third, levy

[1:52] Stability and revenue

[1:54] management. The budget aimed to

[1:55] keep the property tax levy as

[1:56] close as possible to 2025

[1:57] levels with a total of 50,000

[1:59] just over $50,000

[2:00] in new revenue projected from

[2:02] sources such as the wheel tax

[2:03] and state shared revenues.

[2:05] However, we saw significant

[2:08] increases in expenses which

[2:10] will cause the operational tax

[2:11] levy to increase 6.46% over

[2:13] 2025. 4. Infrastructure and

[2:14] public Spaces Major investments

[2:16] are planned

[2:18] for road repairs including

[2:20] South 30th Street, V Bond

[2:24] Street and Lancer Circle, as

[2:26] well as continued improvements

[2:27] to Red Arrow Park and the

[2:28] Community Built Playground.

[2:30] These projects are essential to

[2:31] maintaining and enhancing the

[2:32] quality of life

[2:33] for all who call Manitowoc

[2:35] home. 5.

[2:36] Public Safety and Facility

[2:37] Optimization 2026 budget funds

[2:39] a study to evaluate fire

[2:40] station locations

[2:42] with the goal of Transitioning

[2:44] from a 4-station to a 3-station

[2:45] model and consolidating the

[2:46] Police Department into the

[2:48] Public Safety Building on J

[2:50] Street. This initiative aims

[2:51] to improve service delivery,

[2:52] reduce long-term costs and

[2:54] ensure our facilities meet the

[2:55] evolving needs

[2:57] of our community, 6

[2:58] departmental reorganization and

[3:00] IT investment

[3:01] in proposing the creation

[3:02] of a separate Parks and

[3:04] Recreation Department reverting

[3:05] the current Department of

[3:07] Public Infrastructure back

[3:08] to the Department of Public

[3:10] Works and making significant

[3:11] investments

[3:12] in IT infrastructure

[3:13] to support efficient, secure

[3:15] and modern city operations. I

[3:16] also want to invest

[3:17] in the public transparency

[3:19] of our meetings

[3:20] for our citizens. While we have

[3:22] seen small increases in state

[3:23] shared revenue and other

[3:24] revenues, we also face rising

[3:25] personnel and health insurance

[3:27] costs, as well as the need to

[3:28] upgrade or replace aging

[3:30] infrastructure. The 2026 budget

[3:31] reflects a careful balance

[3:33] between these pressures and our

[3:34] commitment to delivering high

[3:35] quality services

[3:37] to our residents. This year's

[3:38] budget process has emphasized

[3:39] transparency, collaboration and

[3:42] data driven decision making. I

[3:45] want to thank Finance

[3:46] Director Shawn Alford,

[3:48] Comptroller Erica Beaman,

[3:49] department heads and all city

[3:50] employees for their hard work

[3:51] and dedication throughout this

[3:53] process. As you review and

[3:54] deliberate on the 2026

[3:56] executive budget, please know

[3:57] that my office is always

[3:58] available

[4:00] to discuss any aspect

[4:01] of this proposal

[4:02] in greater detail. Together we

[4:04] can continue building a

[4:05] stronger,

[4:06] more vibrant matwoc.

[4:08] Respectfully submitted. I do

[4:11] have a presentation

[4:12] of some highlights of the 2026

[4:15] proposed executive budget that

[4:16] I'll go through now. First, I

[4:18] mentioned some new revenue.

[4:19] Wheel tax, we're increasing

[4:23] $20,000.

[4:25] This is not because it's an

[4:26] increase

[4:28] to the annual fee that remains

[4:29] at $20 a vehicle. Just looking

[4:31] at historical trends, we felt

[4:32] we could increase that number

[4:34] by $20,000. So, the wheel tax

[4:35] itself does not increase

[4:37] for the citizen,

[4:38] just our projected increase

[4:40] to the revenue of it state

[4:41] shared revenue increased

[4:43] $186,000. That's a 3.3%

[4:44] increase that was

[4:46] in the last biennial budget for

[4:47] shared revenue increases

[4:49] statewide.

[4:50] Supplemental, just different

[4:51] types of taxes. About a

[4:53] $48,000 increase. Right

[4:54] around 3.4% there too. We saw

[4:56] some decreases

[4:58] in our revenues, however.

[4:59] Expenditure restraint program,

[5:01] which we've been a part of

[5:02] for many, many years, that's a

[5:04] state program that's decreasing

[5:05] $83,261 and lift bridge aids

[5:07] are about $120,000 decrease

[5:08] from last year. So overall,

[5:10] just about $51,000 in new

[5:16] revenues other than property

[5:18] taxes that we saw

[5:20] in the budget. So very minimal,

[5:22] I would say new expenses. This

[5:31] is just personnel,

[5:35] so this is just personnel.

[5:38] This is not anything other than

[5:39] personnel

[5:40] in the operating budget.

[5:41] In the general fund we saw,

[5:43] as I mentioned in the letter,

[5:45] a 3% increase. I'm recommending

[5:46] for non reps. That's a

[5:48] $316,000 increase. 5% increase

[5:52] in the police union

[5:55] compensation based off of their

[5:57] collective bargaining

[5:59] agreement. That's $359,000

[6:00] over 4% for the fire union in

[6:02] their collective bargaining

[6:03] agreement.

[6:06] That's almost a $200,000

[6:08] increase

[6:09] for wages and benefits there.

[6:11] The compression pay plan that

[6:12] was approved

[6:13] by council a few months ago

[6:15] went

[6:17] through personnel committee.

[6:18] This is the first year it's

[6:20] hitting. So, you won't see a

[6:21] massive increase

[6:23] in future years.

[6:24] But this is the first year to

[6:26] bump everyone up who are

[6:27] non-represented employees

[6:29] because as you can see,

[6:30] non-represented employees in

[6:32] the police and fire department

[6:33] are getting 3% raises and union

[6:35] employees are getting 5% raises

[6:36] or 4. So we are really starting

[6:38] to see compression again. This

[6:39] is a council approved plan,

[6:41] but that's $129,000 increase

[6:42] over last year

[6:44] to implement that plan

[6:47] in year one. Health insurance,

[6:49] which council also approved the

[6:50] plan for next year that had a

[6:52] 13% increase which was

[6:54] mentioned

[6:56] on the council floor. So.

[6:57] So, you knew about that.

[6:58] But that is a $365,000 hit

[7:00] to the general fund. That is

[7:01] not the 100% because of course

[7:02] the employee bears 12.5%

[7:04] of that which is their portion.

[7:06] But this is what directly

[7:07] affects the city budget and

[7:09] what we're responsible for. So

[7:10] total costs

[7:12] for just wages and benefits,

[7:14] an increase of year

[7:15] over year is $1,368,000 in

[7:17] in new expenses since 2025

[7:19] going into 2026. So, that alone

[7:20] just the personnel increases

[7:22] created the situation that

[7:23] you'll see as we move forward

[7:25] here when we talk about

[7:27] property taxes and how we are

[7:39] going to fund that major road

[7:41] projects. I will note that we

[7:44] have an updated 2026-2031 road

[7:46] project plan

[7:48] in your budget book. Council

[7:50] approved one last year as we

[7:51] mentioned last year. It's just

[7:53] a plan. It was not set

[7:54] in stone. All dependent

[7:56] on many different factors. One

[7:57] of those factors was Michigan

[8:00] Avenue was supposed to be in

[8:01] 2026 budget that went to the

[8:03] public infrastructure committee

[8:05] and they recommend pushing that

[8:06] back to the 2027 budget. So

[8:09] that was one major change that

[8:10] was an action of the committee

[8:12] that was different. Kellner

[8:13] street was also in there when

[8:17] evaluating the new updated

[8:18] plan. Looked at the road

[8:20] in detail

[8:21] like we did do every year.

[8:23] Kellner street did not rank as

[8:25] low as Lancer Circle,

[8:26] for example, just

[8:28] down the road. So that is why

[8:30] Kellner street got pushed back

[8:31] another year. Kellner street,

[8:33] if you recall in the Paeser

[8:34] ratings there was

[8:36] about a block that was really,

[8:37] really bad shape and we talked

[8:39] about not doing small little

[8:40] sections

[8:42] but the entire stretch. If

[8:44] we're going to do something.

[8:46] That's another reason why we

[8:47] recommended Kellner street

[8:48] to be pushed off another year

[8:50] is because a vast majority

[8:52] of the portion of Kellner

[8:53] street still is in decent shape

[8:54] versus that one section.

[8:56] We're going

[8:57] to look and see what we can do

[8:59] about that one section

[9:00] for next year outside

[9:02] of the capital borrowing. But

[9:04] that's main reason why that

[9:05] road was switched with Lancer

[9:07] Circle which is in much worse

[9:08] shape and can be engineered and

[9:10] done much quicker too as well.

[9:11] So South 30th Street v Bonded

[9:13] UI that's part of the federal

[9:15] Bipartisan Infrastructure act

[9:21] that was passed a few years ago

[9:23] that is federally funded

[9:24] at 80%.

[9:26] So, the local share that you'll

[9:27] see hit the capital projects is

[9:28] $450,000 to finish

[9:30] to complete that project. 1.8

[9:31] total or 1.8 on the other end

[9:33] from the federal government

[9:34] VBAAN from South 10th to

[9:36] Lakeside Boulevard that's right

[9:38] in front of UW Manitowoc campus

[9:39] for just under $1.5 million.

[9:41] Lancer Circle

[9:43] for a million dollars. One big

[9:44] one. So, part of this budget is

[9:46] as I mentioned, data driven and

[9:48] looking forward. While the

[9:50] street isn't going

[9:52] to be redone, there's a lot of

[9:53] engineering and design work as

[9:55] we've mentioned several times

[9:56] to council for Franklin street

[9:59] to be completely reconstructed

[10:00] in 2026. We spoke to our design

[10:02] firm and engineering firm.

[10:04] It's about,

[10:10] I believe it was 10%

[10:12] of the total project. Yeah, 10%

[10:17] of the total project. Because

[10:18] we're looking at about a $6

[10:20] million project. 10% of it is

[10:21] about the engineering and

[10:23] design work that has

[10:24] to be done. Since it's a two

[10:26] phased project and

[10:27] since it is extremely difficult

[10:29] with the railroad tracks that

[10:30] go directly

[10:32] along it downtown portion

[10:33] of it, it's a big project. We

[10:38] want to spend 2026 hiring

[10:39] outside to get all the design

[10:41] and engineering work done. As

[10:42] you can see in the road plan

[10:43] for the next five years. 2027

[10:47] we would then construct South

[10:49] 6th to South 10th ish 10th or

[10:50] 11th depending

[10:52] on whatever happens. That's

[10:53] about a $2 million portion

[10:55] of the project. That

[10:56] of course is the downtown. So

[10:58] that's why when you look

[11:00] at the downtown plans,

[11:01] Franklin street isn't touched

[11:03] because we don't want to do

[11:04] anything because we know that

[11:06] the entire street's going to be

[11:07] reconstructed and we'll deal

[11:09] with all the good looking

[11:11] things at that point and then

[11:12] in 2028 finish

[11:14] off the remainder of Franklin

[11:16] Street.

[11:18] So again, what's in the budget

[11:19] for this year is $600,000 which

[11:20] is part

[11:22] of the total project cost.

[11:23] 600,000. 6 million is the total

[11:25] project cost. More than likely,

[11:26] or 6.6 million at the end

[11:28] of the day. One alley,

[11:29] Custer. It's. It's surrounded

[11:30] by Custer Street, West

[11:32] Marshall Street, South 36th and

[11:34] South 39th, some cemetery

[11:37] roadway replacements

[11:38] in the northeast section. And

[11:42] one thing that I've been

[11:44] wanting to do for quite a few

[11:46] years is increase the sidewalk

[11:47] repair and replace budget. A

[11:48] lot of those dollars have been

[11:50] going just to trees that are

[11:52] being removed, stumps and the

[11:53] sidewalks that are with it.

[11:54] Our Green Dot program that we

[11:56] used to have

[11:57] in the past really has been

[11:59] in the past. I'd like

[12:00] to reinvigorate that Green Dot

[12:02] program where we go around

[12:03] to sections

[12:04] of the city and actually focus

[12:06] on sidewalks that are

[12:07] in bad shape,

[12:09] not just ones that have trees

[12:10] around them. So, the total

[12:13] budget for that is $250,000

[12:15] for 2026. Two major parks

[12:17] projects. We have several parks

[12:18] within the general fund that we

[12:20] will continue to do,

[12:22] smaller parks throughout the

[12:23] city, and the playgrounds that

[12:24] will just continue that.

[12:26] But two of the major ones that

[12:27] we're looking at for 2026 is

[12:28] Red Arrow Park. You've budgeted

[12:31] $500,000 last year. We

[12:33] mentioned last year that that's

[12:35] a phased project. That that

[12:37] 500 was just basically phase

[12:38] one. We had three phases. You

[12:40] were informed last year that

[12:42] more than likely we'll be back

[12:44] with $500,000 more or less plus

[12:46] to continue the rest

[12:48] of the phase or

[12:49] to get all the phases done.

[12:51] We're hoping to receive a

[12:53] $500,000 grant,

[12:54] which is looking very positive.

[12:57] The total project cost

[12:59] for all phases is about $1.5

[13:00] million.

[13:02] So, this would be able

[13:03] to get all the phases done in

[13:04] 2026 with this additional 500

[13:07] that I'm asking you to budget

[13:08] for the 500 that we have

[13:10] already in hand,

[13:12] that we haven't spent, and the

[13:14] $500,000 grant. Community

[13:15] Built Playground. So, the

[13:17] Community Built Playground is

[13:19] coming toward the end

[13:21] of its life. Instead

[13:22] of continuing to put money

[13:23] into maintenance of it, which

[13:25] is not really getting us too

[13:26] far,

[13:28] we should really start planning

[13:29] for what the future

[13:31] of that entire park will be.

[13:32] It's not an immediate need,

[13:34] but we really should

[13:35] to actually replace it. It's

[13:39] still in good shape. You can

[13:40] still use it. But I would like

[13:42] to start the process

[13:43] of planning for what the next

[13:45] large project would be there.

[13:46] We've talked

[13:48] to many consultants as

[13:50] to what. Again, this is

[13:51] about 10% of what a large

[13:53] project would be, about 2.5

[13:54] million bucks. Of course, if we

[13:56] get designs and everything.

[13:58] In 2026, we can start talking

[13:59] to folks about donating

[14:01] like we did last time, because

[14:03] they'll actually have

[14:04] renderings. They'll see what

[14:06] the possibilities are. But this

[14:07] is really step one. I don't

[14:09] know when the final project

[14:11] would come to fruition, but

[14:12] without this starting piece,

[14:14] we would. We're just going to

[14:15] be continually a year behind.

[14:17] So those are the two big park

[14:19] projects that I'm recommending

[14:20] for 2026. Some new items. We

[14:27] have a phone system upgrade

[14:28] just for all

[14:30] of our city phones. We work

[14:31] with MPU on this. So, this is

[14:33] just the city's portion

[14:34] of that total project cost,

[14:36] looking at about $314,000

[14:37] for a complete phone upgrade.

[14:39] No matter what we do,

[14:40] we have. I think 2028 is the be

[14:42] all end all year for when we.

[14:43] Our current phone system won't

[14:45] be supported

[14:46] at all whatsoever. So, this is

[14:48] really making sure that we get

[14:49] this process going in 26 and

[14:51] make sure that it's done by

[14:52] 27, because I think January 1st

[14:54] of 2028, it's obsolete. Big one

[14:56] council chambers AV upgrade. AV

[14:58] is all inclusive

[15:07] of audio video. If you were

[15:10] in here before the meeting, you

[15:12] saw that this wasn't working.

[15:14] We had to come in last second

[15:15] and make sure it works.

[15:16] We've piecemealed a lot

[15:18] of this room together

[15:19] with audio visual

[15:21] over the years. This would be a

[15:22] complete upgrade

[15:24] to support the new systems,

[15:25] microphones and everything that

[15:26] makes sure that this actually

[15:28] sits on the screen

[15:33] like it's supposed to and not

[15:34] off it. Which there's small

[15:36] earthquakes that happen under

[15:37] this room or something because

[15:39] it moves constantly.

[15:41] But the point is,

[15:42] over the last 20 plus years

[15:43] that city hall has been

[15:44] in existence,

[15:46] we've piecemealed all

[15:47] of our audio visual

[15:48] in this room. And this would be

[15:50] a complete upgrade where

[15:51] everything would be taken care

[15:53] of and. And finally,

[15:55] all work hopefully in tandem

[15:56] together and we don't have

[15:58] issues moving forward.

[15:59] Open meeting software. This is

[16:01] actually something that

[16:02] Manitowoc County does. You'll

[16:04] see it in the clerk's budget.

[16:06] It's a $10,000 subscription,

[16:07] basically is a much easier and

[16:08] more transparent way

[16:10] for citizens

[16:14] to see what you're voting on,

[16:16] how you voted. So they can see

[16:17] yay or nay immediately. If you

[16:19] watch a county board meeting,

[16:22] it's basically kind

[16:23] of that system.

[16:25] But it would go

[16:26] along very nicely with the new

[16:28] AV upgrades that I'm

[16:29] recommending as well.

[16:32] Eliminating the tuition

[16:33] reimbursement program. We have

[16:35] seen some interest,

[16:37] but it's been dwindling

[16:39] over the years. This is a

[16:40] $20,000 tuition reimbursement

[16:42] program that was started quite

[16:44] a few years ago. Recommending

[16:46] just allocating those dollars

[16:48] to the People Committee. The

[16:49] people Committee is the one

[16:50] that puts on the employee

[16:53] picnic every year and things

[16:54] like that,

[16:57] the star awards that we do, the

[17:00] nice little things that we do

[17:01] for employee morale

[17:02] around the city. So, looking at

[17:04] just allocating those dollars

[17:06] elsewhere, there was a request

[17:08] from the Marine Band and the

[17:11] Symphony over the years

[17:12] to increase their allotment.

[17:14] We give both organizations

[17:16] dollars every year. I believe

[17:18] the Marine Band currently is

[17:19] at 15,000 and the symphony

[17:21] orchestra is at 7,500. We cut

[17:22] them quite a few years ago when

[17:24] we cut every other department

[17:25] by 10% or 15% or whatever it

[17:27] was. I'm recommending bringing

[17:28] them back up

[17:30] to the levels that they were

[17:31] 15 years ago and today. And

[17:33] they did request it,

[17:35] as they are doing,

[17:37] especially the Marine Band and

[17:39] Symphony are doing much more

[17:41] throughout the community, many

[17:42] more performances than they

[17:44] have in the past.

[17:47] Also, an increase in pay

[17:48] for the Ryer West Art Museum

[17:50] Visitor Service clerks. Right

[17:51] now, they're making probably

[17:52] around 12ish dollars an hour.

[17:54] These individuals are

[17:55] responsible for nights,

[17:57] weekends. They're responsible

[17:59] for literally tens of millions

[18:00] of dollars of priceless art

[18:01] in the Ryer West Art Museum. I

[18:03] think they should be paid a

[18:04] more fair wage. Basically put

[18:06] them in line with where we pay

[18:07] our crossing guards. They're

[18:09] around $15 an hour. Just

[18:11] recommending a small bump

[18:12] in pay

[18:14] for those few individuals. But

[18:16] also I think it's important

[18:20] that

[18:22] for what they are tasked with,

[18:23] they're paid more

[18:25] appropriately. So, the

[18:26] Department of Public

[18:29] Infrastructure. So I mentioned

[18:31] in my budget letter to

[18:32] department heads and staff that

[18:33] we really want

[18:35] to take a deep dive

[18:37] into how the Department of

[18:39] Public Infrastructure is formed

[18:40] or how it currently operates

[18:42] and how we could maybe make it

[18:43] work more efficiently because

[18:45] it is a very,

[18:46] very large department

[18:48] with many different areas

[18:49] of responsibility,

[18:51] from streets and transit

[18:53] to forestry and parks,

[18:56] buildings and grounds and

[18:57] engineering. There's just a

[18:59] plethora of things

[19:00] within this department that

[19:02] after sitting

[19:03] down and discussing

[19:05] for quite some time,

[19:06] basically this entire year,

[19:07] looking

[19:09] at separating the park and

[19:10] Recreation Department

[19:11] out as it was in the past,

[19:13] having its own separate

[19:14] department, parks,

[19:16] as I'm sure most of you know,

[19:18] are near and dear

[19:19] to what I want to prioritize

[19:20] in my time as mayor. And I

[19:22] think having this separate

[19:23] dedicated department will help

[19:24] right size. The current

[19:26] department, as is with transit

[19:27] and streets and everything

[19:29] else, back to the Department

[19:31] of Public Works. While Parks

[19:32] can focus and recreation can

[19:34] truly focus and prioritize park

[19:35] and recreation. I do not,

[19:37] I did not change anything

[19:38] in the budget. I don't want to

[19:40] scare employees. I don't want

[19:41] anyone thinking their job is

[19:43] eliminated.

[19:45] What my plan is, is staff. And

[19:53] I will come

[19:55] to the personnel committee with

[19:58] a recommendation and a proposal

[19:59] throughout the end

[20:01] of the year, early next year.

[20:02] The goal is obviously to be

[20:04] at least budget neutral,

[20:06] if not potentially find ways

[20:08] for savings. So that's why the

[20:10] budget doesn't have a park and

[20:11] rec director specifically

[20:13] in it.

[20:14] But the dollars will be there

[20:16] for if there is a change that

[20:17] happens. But I didn't want

[20:18] to put the cart

[20:20] before the horse. This is more

[20:22] of a. A policy decision

[20:23] in my mind. But I think it's

[20:25] one that could pay dividends.

[20:27] So, I want to prioritize it as

[20:29] we move forward. I think I want

[20:30] it to be an open forum

[20:32] with staff input. Don't want

[20:34] to try and hide anything.

[20:36] Don't want to make it something

[20:37] that staff or the electors

[20:38] aren't comfortable with.

[20:40] But hoping

[20:41] for an implementation

[20:43] in mid-2026 for that. So you'll

[20:46] see that coming. Fire

[20:51] department station

[20:54] configuration. This is also

[20:56] something we've talked about

[20:57] for years. As we look

[20:59] at our aging buildings,

[21:01] as we look

[21:02] at the geography and the growth

[21:04] in the community, one thing

[21:06] that's pretty glaring is the

[21:07] age and condition

[21:09] of our current fire stations.

[21:10] What we would need to put

[21:12] into them to bring them up

[21:13] to where they should be. And

[21:15] this is the physical building,

[21:16] but also geography where we

[21:18] know that the city's grown

[21:19] since we've had the current

[21:21] forest station configuration

[21:22] for most of my lifetime. We

[21:25] know that the city's grown

[21:26] pretty much

[21:27] on the western southwestern

[21:29] side of the city, but also the

[21:30] city's growing pretty going to

[21:32] have few hundred plus citizens

[21:33] on the northeast side

[21:35] of the city with the mid City

[21:37] Mall development and the

[21:38] preserve development and all

[21:40] the Elks Club development.

[21:41] So, really what I want

[21:43] to do is

[21:45] since it's been so long,

[21:46] take a deep dive,

[21:47] hire an outside consultant at

[21:49] $70,000 in the budget really

[21:51] to focus on. Can we get down to

[21:54] a three-station configuration?

[21:58] Assess what that would look

[22:00] like. Identify optimal station

[22:02] sites based on city growth,

[22:06] accessibility and response

[22:07] needs.

[22:10] That's key. Again, we haven't

[22:12] done that for a very long time

[22:13] with the,

[22:14] with the way the city's growing

[22:16] in certain areas. I think it's

[22:17] fine time we

[22:19] at least assess that and look

[22:21] at it for our own good. And

[22:23] again, there's a lot

[22:24] of stations that require a Lot

[22:25] of money

[22:27] for maintenance and I don't

[22:28] want to have to put a lot

[22:30] of money into maintenance if

[22:32] that's not going

[22:33] to be the long-term solution.

[22:35] Sometimes it's small things,

[22:37] but there are some pretty large

[22:39] ones. Especially Station 2 by

[22:40] Piggly Wiggly is the oldest.

[22:42] And if you want,

[22:43] we can take a walk through.

[22:44] But we need

[22:46] to make a decision either

[22:47] to put money into the current

[22:48] stations or look at a different

[22:49] model and different way of

[22:50] doing business. I'm

[22:52] recommending that approach. I

[22:53] think there will be long term

[22:55] benefits. This isn't a plan to

[22:56] change all stations tomorrow.

[22:57] It's a multi-year initiative.

[22:58] But I think that doing this

[23:00] study can lead

[23:01] to significant cost savings,

[23:03] improved service quality and

[23:04] faster response times based

[23:06] off of where the physical

[23:07] locations could be. Part of

[23:09] this also is an understanding

[23:10] that the police department has

[23:12] grown over the years and they

[23:14] already occupy where the

[23:15] administrative offices were

[23:17] in the fire department

[23:18] in the public safety building.

[23:20] Part of this plan and we've

[23:24] talked quite extensively

[23:25] of how Station 1 more than

[23:27] likely isn't the most ideal

[23:28] location for a fire station

[23:29] because just a couple blocks

[23:31] east you have no reason

[23:32] to have a fire station go to.

[23:33] You have accessibility with the

[23:35] bridges and just everything.

[23:36] So, station one has always been

[23:38] for the last 10 plus years of

[23:40] is this really the most ideal

[23:43] location anyway

[23:45] for a fire station? And

[23:46] with the growth of police and

[23:47] seeing their needs, it could be

[23:49] a cost savings that way too

[23:50] just to have police occupy the

[23:52] entire building. So again,

[23:53] that's $70,000 that I'm

[23:55] recommending for that study

[23:57] in 2020. All right, now to the

[24:01] tax levy and the rate changes

[24:02] that I'm recommending,

[24:04] as you can see,

[24:05] the operational tax Levy

[24:06] increased about $1.2 million.

[24:08] If you go back a couple slides

[24:13] and see the personnel just that

[24:14] cost right

[24:15] around that number,

[24:16] I think it was 1.3. So, you can

[24:18] see that the general fund and

[24:19] if you look at debt increased

[24:20] and the library levy increased,

[24:22] but that's based off of the

[24:23] salary increases and the. What

[24:25] other one increased? That's it.

[24:26] Well, health insurance is

[24:28] different, but yeah,

[24:30] so that one. So, the increase

[24:32] for the operational tax Levy is

[24:36] at 6.46%.

[24:39] With you when you add TIF

[24:41] in there, the total tax levy

[24:44] increase is just

[24:47] around 5.75%. The assessed tax

[24:49] rate in 2025 was 6.76.

[24:50] 2026 it is 5.9337, a decrease

[24:52] of 12.34%. But don't get too

[24:54] excited because, so in 2025, if

[24:56] you had $100,000 home,

[24:57] you would pay $676 to the City

[24:59] of Manitowoc. In 2026, if you

[25:01] had a $100,000 home, you Would

[25:08] pay $593 to the City of

[25:18] Manitowoc. Of course,

[25:20] that sounds all good,

[25:22] but we did just have. So, most

[25:23] homes did not see their

[25:24] $100,000 home stay at

[25:26] $100,000. So, what I looked

[25:27] at was because I know

[25:28] Alderman Reckleberg will love

[25:30] this. What I looked

[25:31] at was the average increase

[25:33] of a home in the city of

[25:35] Manitowoc. Of all the homes,

[25:36] all 15,000 of them was 23%.

[25:38] Everyone in the city,

[25:39] on average, had a 23% increase

[25:41] in value of their homes. Some

[25:43] had higher, some had lower. So

[25:44] I did is I looked at $100,000

[25:46] home in 2025, if it had a 23%

[25:48] increase, it would be at

[25:50] $123,000 next year. Right?

[25:53] It's an increase of $23,000

[25:54] in 2025. There's not a thing

[26:03] on here,

[26:06] is there? I don't want

[26:09] to try it. In 2025, you paid

[26:11] $676.87 to the City of

[26:13] Manitowoc. In 2026, under the

[26:14] new assessed rate that I'm

[26:16] recommending, you would pay

[26:18] $729.85, a difference

[26:20] of 7.83% increase

[26:24] in the property tax.

[26:26] For an average home,

[26:27] that increased 23%. You can see

[26:29] all the way down to $500,000. I

[26:30] did all of them. You can see

[26:32] that they're all. Because

[26:33] they're all 23% increase

[26:35] in value. The total tax

[26:36] increase is all at 7.83%.

[26:38] Again, this is

[26:39] for the average home

[26:41] in the City of Manitowoc. And

[26:44] again, this is just for City

[26:45] of Manitowoc property taxes.

[26:47] This is not the total mill

[26:48] rate. This is not

[26:49] for the county. It's not

[26:51] for school district. We don't

[26:54] know where they're going

[26:55] to end up. Just for the City

[26:57] of Manitowoc.

[26:58] Under my proposed budget,

[26:59] the average house in the City

[27:00] of Manitowoc would see a tax

[27:02] increase. I gave you the

[27:04] reasons why before,

[27:05] but I'll go

[27:07] through them again. And I know

[27:08] that Alderman Reckleberg really

[27:09] is thinking right now, not

[27:11] every home equal increased 23%.

[27:12] Show me the numbers

[27:14] for different.

[27:15] So, what I did is I took all

[27:16] of your tax rates,

[27:17] your assessed values of all

[27:19] of your homes and mine,

[27:20] and I did the same exact thing.

[27:22] One thing that I want

[27:24] to point out. Yes, I will be

[27:26] paying the most taxes out

[27:28] of everyone

[27:29] in this room that is elected.

[27:31] So, under my budget that I gave

[27:33] you, I'll be paying the most.

[27:34] You're welcome.

[27:36] But number two, this is 11

[27:37] homes. So this is 11 homes

[27:38] in the City of Manitowoc. One

[27:41] thing I want to point out is

[27:42] the average increase throughout

[27:45] the entire city. Now, this is

[27:46] every 10 district, right? So

[27:48] every. You all have different

[27:49] types of homes,

[27:50] but the average increase out

[27:51] of all of us was at 22%. So you

[27:53] just took this random sample

[27:56] of elected officials,

[27:57] and it's right at the exact.

[27:59] Almost the exact average

[28:01] of what we saw citywide. As you

[28:04] can see, though, what I really,

[28:06] really want to point out,

[28:07] under my proposed budget,

[28:09] while we will be bringing

[28:10] in more money into the City

[28:12] of Manitowoc because I am

[28:13] recommending raising taxes,

[28:15] you can see everyone is

[28:16] at a different level. So, my

[28:18] house increased to 44%

[28:19] in value. I'll be paying $330

[28:21] more next year to the City of

[28:23] Manitowoc in taxes. You can go

[28:24] down the list. Some people got

[28:27] lucky. Alderman Cummings will

[28:31] pay $88 less in property taxes

[28:33] to the City of Manitowoc

[28:34] under my proposal.

[28:36] But one thing that I wanted

[28:37] to really kind of point

[28:39] out is, so between all

[28:41] of us as Electeds, we paid

[28:43] $16,467 to the City of

[28:45] Manitowoc last year,

[28:46] just us collectively. Next

[28:48] year, under my budget here,

[28:49] we'd pay 16,780. We're only

[28:50] collecting 362 more dollars

[28:52] from us 11 people than we did

[28:56] last year. That's because not

[28:57] everyone's tax bill is going

[29:02] to be the same next year. So I

[29:03] showed you the last screen,

[29:05] because on average, the

[29:06] property tax rate will increase

[29:08] because you see there 7.83%.

[29:11] But on my tax bill, it's going

[29:14] to show a 25.83% increase

[29:15] in the city. On Alderman

[29:17] Sickwitz's tax bill,

[29:20] it's going to show negative

[29:22] 6.69% increase. It's because

[29:26] while we are still. While we're

[29:27] collecting more, it's the

[29:30] reassessment made it more fair

[29:32] for everyone. Some people are

[29:34] going to pay more,

[29:36] some people are going

[29:37] to pay less. If you look

[29:39] in the bottom

[29:40] of our average tax increase

[29:43] for all of us, it's right at

[29:44] that seven and a half percent

[29:45] almost that you saw

[29:46] on the average

[29:47] for everyone else. So I'm not

[29:49] trying to hide that we're

[29:52] raising property taxes,

[29:54] but I want to point out to the

[29:55] citizens that everyone's going

[29:57] to be different. Every single

[29:59] house is not going to see the

[30:01] Average tax increase or

[30:02] decrease or what? Because

[30:05] everyone is different. Some

[30:07] benefit this year, some not.

[30:08] If I showed this screen last

[30:10] year,

[30:11] mine probably would have gone

[30:12] down and Alderman Sickwith's

[30:14] would have skyrocketed, and

[30:16] Alderman Norrell's probably

[30:17] skyrocketed

[30:18] in that last assessment too.

[30:19] So, while I'm showing some

[30:20] people are benefiting and

[30:22] by not paying as much,

[30:23] they paid dearly in previous

[30:24] years probably because

[30:25] of their increases. This will

[30:27] be available for all of you

[30:29] to have just

[30:30] in case I messed up

[30:31] on something.

[30:32] But I don't think I did. So,

[30:34] when we collect,

[30:35] when we collect more money,

[30:37] the one thing I want to point

[30:38] out is a 1% increase

[30:40] in the tax rate gets about

[30:42] $200,000 in new revenue. So, if

[30:45] we increased taxes 1%

[30:49] for everyone, we would get

[30:51] about $200,000 more

[30:52] in revenue. If you recall the

[30:54] personnel increases,

[30:56] just the personnel increases,

[30:57] there's no new positions

[30:58] in the budget. There's no

[31:00] positions recommended

[31:01] for elimination, none

[31:02] furloughed, nothing

[31:04] like that. That was 1.368

[31:06] million. So, a roughly 7% tax

[31:07] increase would cover basically

[31:09] just what we've approved in the

[31:14] past other than the 3% increase

[31:16] for non reps. And that's right.

[31:19] In an average 23% increased

[31:20] value in home, it was

[31:22] at 7.83%. So not trying

[31:24] to just raise taxes just

[31:27] to get more money

[31:28] into the city, you can see

[31:30] exactly where those new dollars

[31:32] would be going toward. That's

[31:34] just personnel we cut.

[31:35] In other areas of the budget,

[31:37] we found other ways to manage

[31:38] the other increased costs

[31:39] without having

[31:40] to raise taxes even more. IT

[31:42] like I mentioned, we have

[31:43] to put a lot of money

[31:45] into our IT infrastructure.

[31:47] We're transitioning to

[31:48] Microsoft O365 instead of

[31:51] on site servers. That's about

[31:52] 120,000 of that 300 just

[31:53] for subscriptions for that.

[31:55] Again, we're going to get rid

[31:56] of the on site servers

[31:59] in a lot of cases. But it,

[32:00] there's a large increase

[32:02] for that Police Department

[32:03] software increased $75,000. I

[32:04] think 40,000

[32:06] of that was the new Flock

[32:07] system that we implemented,

[32:09] which is very huge help

[32:10] to the police department

[32:11] needed. But again,

[32:13] it's an increased cost. Salt

[32:14] increased another $80,000

[32:15] again. Bridge inspections

[32:17] increased $80,000. This is just

[32:18] four things that I just pointed

[32:20] out as randoms just to show you

[32:21] that even though the tax

[32:23] increase that I'm recommending

[32:28] is going to basically cover our

[32:31] personnel increases,

[32:36] there were a lot

[32:37] of other increases

[32:39] in the budget that we found

[32:40] ways to manage without having

[32:41] to increase property taxes even

[32:43] more. Again, the levy increase

[32:49] covers all these increased

[32:51] expenses without eliminating

[32:52] employees or services provided

[32:53] to the citizens. And finally,

[32:55] budget listening sessions. I

[32:57] will have my annual Mayor's

[32:58] budget listening sessions

[32:59] Thursday, November 20 here at

[33:00] City Hall. One

[33:03] at 10:30 and one at 6:00'.

[33:05] Clock. The Common Council will

[33:07] hold their public hearing on

[33:08] Monday, December 1st

[33:09] at a special meeting. That's

[33:11] also the night they plan you

[33:12] should plan

[33:13] on approving or you have

[33:15] to approve the budget.

[33:17] But you can change anything up

[33:18] to that point too if you want.

[33:20] But that would be the night

[33:21] that they would adopt the

[33:22] budget as well.

[33:23] And if you would like to see

[33:24] how your city taxes would look

[33:26] just like I did

[33:27] for the alder screen,

[33:28] get a hold of me. I'll type it

[33:29] into my nifty Excel file and

[33:30] show you exactly what your city

[33:31] taxes would look like

[33:33] under this proposal

[33:34] with what your assessment came

[33:35] in at individually. That is all

[33:37] I have. Those are the

[33:42] highlights of the budget

[33:43] Council. You have the binders,

[33:44] the entire city budget,

[33:46] this presentation and line

[33:48] by line version of the entire

[33:49] city budget will be

[33:52] on the city's website tomorrow.

[33:54] Manitowoc. You as the citizens

[33:55] or whomever can view that

[33:57] entire document. You can call

[33:58] your alder. If you have

[34:00] questions or concerns or

[34:01] myself, you can come

[34:04] to listening sessions. And I

[34:06] think that is all I have. Are

[34:08] there any questions for me

[34:10] of the council? The Finance

[34:16] Committee meets next. They'll

[34:17] discuss setting future dates to

[34:19] specifically discuss the

[34:20] budget. Otherwise, that is.

[34:22] Oh, we need to officially call

[34:24] for the public hearing. So I

[34:25] need a motion to call

[34:26] for the public hearing on

[34:28] December 1st at 5:00pm Is there

[34:32] a motion? I don't know.

[34:34] Sorry, I don't think it's on.

[34:35] But motion and a second by

[34:37] Norell. All those in favor?

[34:38] Opposed? Motion carried

[34:40] unanimously. That's official.

[34:42] And all I would need is a

[34:43] motion to adjourn. We are

[34:46] adjourned. Thank you.

Common Council on 2025-11-04 5:00 PM - Special Meeting

Agenda

Transcript