[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.