[0:00] approve the agenda as presented. And I
[0:02] just want to note that in
[0:05] number three, the 2027 budget discussion
[0:08] also includes the strategic financial
[0:10] plan. So it's all encompassed in there.
[0:13] It's not a separate item.
[0:14] » So the 2027,
[0:16] » Yeah, well
[0:19] » 2027 budget,
[0:20] » The fir the first thing we'll be talking
[0:21] about is the long-term financial
[0:23] » And that's 26 through 31
[0:26] » 30
[0:26] » 30.
[0:29] » Okay. So move.
[0:30] » All right. I got a motion to approve the
[0:31] agenda as presented.
[0:33] » Second.
[0:34] » I will second it. So all in favor say I.
[0:36] » I.
[0:37] » Okay. [clears throat] That's 5 Z. We're
[0:39] on to the next item. Josh, are you going
[0:41] to do the introduction or how do you
[0:43] want to go?
[0:44] » Uh yeah, I can I can jump and do a a
[0:47] quick introduction here real quick. I
[0:48] mean, as you know, Brad was back here
[0:50] month or two ago um to discuss kind of
[0:52] with us some general high level
[0:54] questions. And so I know that ABDO has
[0:56] been working on um kind of the long-term
[0:59] financial plan in the background. They
[1:01] have met with staff here a couple times
[1:03] just to ask about assumptions um and to
[1:06] kind of compare notes and make sure that
[1:09] um assumption wise that they were
[1:11] tracking correctly. Nothing seemed out
[1:13] of order. So I will kind of kick off to
[1:16] Brad kind of where they are landed at
[1:18] this point.
[1:20] » Okay. So, yep, as Josh said, we've met
[1:22] with we've been meeting with staff and
[1:24] going through the assumptions, um,
[1:26] looking at each fund, projecting those
[1:28] out through the through 2030,
[1:31] uh, trying to ma, uh, some of our goals.
[1:33] We talked about our first meeting was
[1:35] kind of managing the ups and downs of
[1:36] the levy, uh, looking at the budget,
[1:38] kind of taking a look at the capital,
[1:40] those types of things, and how you going
[1:42] to fund everything. So, taking all that
[1:45] to account, um, I think we'll just go
[1:47] start going through the slides. I know
[1:49] this was all in your packet as well, so
[1:51] maybe some of you already seen some of
[1:53] it or look through it, but I'll just
[1:56] kind of run through it and certainly we
[1:57] can if you have any questions
[2:00] throughout, we'll we can go through
[2:01] those, but I'll primarily go through
[2:03] what the assumptions were and then kind
[2:04] of how we um made some changes with
[2:07] maybe policy wise going forward. So,
[2:11] um, kind of overview 26 through 20
[2:15] through 2030, um, ending with $46.5
[2:19] million in cash in 2030, which is down
[2:22] about a half a million dollars from what
[2:23] you have today. So, not or at the end of
[2:26] 25. So, we use 25 numbers as a starting
[2:29] point because those were last positive
[2:31] numbers. So, not a whole change in
[2:34] overall cash from 25 to 30. Um, your
[2:37] levy 20 30 levy ends at $7.34
[2:42] million. So that's up about $2 million
[2:45] from where you were in 2025.
[2:48] And I'll we'll go through how we get
[2:50] there, but um and then the last uh data
[2:54] there is $56.9 million of outstanding
[2:56] debt. So your peak debt is in 2026 uh
[3:00] with the issuance of the electric bond.
[3:02] Um but then from then it uh start paying
[3:06] that debt off through 2030.
[3:08] So overall, general fund reserves remain
[3:11] strong throughout the the plan. Um part
[3:13] of the plan is we move the capital um
[3:17] expenditures out of the general fund and
[3:19] into a capital plan and actually started
[3:21] levying into that capital [snorts] fund
[3:23] and funding it with some other excess
[3:26] funds from other funds to pay for your
[3:27] capital. So the general fund ends up to
[3:29] be just your operating reoccurring type
[3:32] expenditures for the plan. So that's
[3:34] going to hold or keep your general fund
[3:37] somewhat steady over the life of of
[3:39] going forward without those ups and
[3:41] downs with capital. Uh levy growth is
[3:44] phased at roughly 5 to 7% annually. Um
[3:47] tax capacity and residential growth um
[3:50] kind of mirror the the tax levy
[3:52] increases there. Again debt peaks at 26
[3:56] um and paying down declines to 2030.
[4:00] Um the one fund that kind of has the
[4:03] most pressure point would be the golf
[4:05] fund. It turns negative in 2027. Um
[4:08] didn't really have a that's going to be
[4:10] a fund you're probably going to have to
[4:12] take a look at and figure out how you're
[4:13] going to fund it um differently going
[4:15] forward. But
[4:17] um so then the next slide our core
[4:19] assumptions.
[4:21] Uh we do have a 3% annual growth rate
[4:24] for revenues. Those would be like
[4:26] charges for services, license and
[4:28] permits. um and other userbased type
[4:31] charges or revenues.
[4:33] Co operating cost 3% annually uh except
[4:37] for personnel. Personnel were at 6%
[4:40] annually.
[4:41] Um that's just the current staffing um
[4:44] levels with benefits and compensation
[4:46] structure. That's kind of where um
[4:48] personnel ended up
[4:51] tax base 3% uh growth in market value
[4:55] each year. So, and plus we added 36
[4:58] homes
[5:00] annually each year. Did not include any
[5:03] commercial growth in the plan. So,
[5:05] somewhat conservative there.
[5:08] L the local government aid u the numbers
[5:11] were out for 2027. So, we took the 2027
[5:14] um LGA had just projected that flat
[5:18] through 2030.
[5:21] and then plan timing of the projects
[5:23] just based on your capital plans and
[5:26] currently you're planning to purchase
[5:28] the different capital needs as well as
[5:30] different projects out there. So those
[5:33] are the assumptions we used.
[5:36] Next slide.
[5:39] So here's I I mentioned this a little
[5:41] little earlier of the general fund were
[5:43] focused on reoccurring city operations.
[5:45] So we um actually starting in the 27
[5:48] budget in the 27 year we moved the
[5:51] capital out of the general fund and into
[5:53] the a capital fund. Um the capital levy
[5:56] plus LGA um goes into those capital
[6:00] funds. So we um part of the LGA each
[6:03] year of the plan starting in 208 I
[6:07] believe um we we're taking 5% out of LGA
[6:11] out of the general fund moving 5 moving
[6:13] that 5% into the a capital fund. So each
[6:16] year we take an additional 5%. So we
[6:19] took 5% 28 10%
[6:22] 15% through 2030 to and then reduced it
[6:26] in the general fund increased it in the
[6:27] capital fund start funding capital needs
[6:30] um with it instead of the reoccurring
[6:35] tried trying to less reliant on that
[6:38] state funding in the your general
[6:40] operating funds. Um the debt um you do
[6:43] have some debt funds that have excess
[6:45] cash in them. So, as the debt gets paid
[6:48] off, there's excess cash that's in
[6:50] there. With those excess funds, we put
[6:53] um up to $25,000. It was 50% into the
[6:57] capital fund, 50% into another debt
[7:00] fund, up to $25,000 into the capital
[7:02] fund. So, um if there was more than
[7:05] 25,000 left over in a a debt fund at
[7:07] year end, we put 25,000 into the capital
[7:11] fund and then the rest of it went to
[7:12] another debt debt fund to help pay off
[7:14] future debt.
[7:16] and keep those future levies um less
[7:19] than what they normally be.
[7:21] » We talk about that for a little bit.
[7:23] » Sure, they can.
[7:24] » And that's been an issue I think that we
[7:25] didn't have a clear understanding with
[7:27] for a while.
[7:29] » Sure.
[7:30] » This seems to give us a lot
[7:33] of schedules break down the transfers in
[7:36] and transfer out.
[7:38] » Some of it's going for you
[7:43] » But then also this other
[7:46] Maybe a different fun project.
[7:48] » Yep.
[7:50] » And money could go into there also from
[7:52] that. So
[7:54] » Can you just talk about what are the
[7:56] parameters and timing of this? I had the
[7:59] question with the 2011 I earlier
[8:03] really trying to understand is that
[8:05] really available in February 2027
[8:09] $300,000
[8:12] to us. So
[8:16] » You have a good grasp of what our
[8:18] abilities are and what we're doing
[8:19] because you're you're putting it all in
[8:21] here.
[8:21] » Yep.
[8:21] » And it provides a lot of flexibility
[8:23] which is fantastic and it really is a
[8:26] good thing for us. But
[8:30] » So when you're levying and when you're
[8:32] assessing for a bond that those monies
[8:36] are restricted for that bond until the
[8:38] bond is paid off. So once that bond is
[8:41] paid off, this whatever you were levying
[8:43] or assessing for, those monies are
[8:46] unrestricted at that point. You can um
[8:49] put them into another debt fund. A lot
[8:51] of communities say we levied for debt.
[8:53] We're going to keep it in debt. But they
[8:55] really are unrestricted and really up to
[8:57] you to do with what you want after the
[9:01] » After that bond is paid off.
[9:03] » Oh, okay. And I think in your situation
[9:05] or this example you or not in your
[9:08] projection
[9:09] I mean the the big the big is this
[9:13] million dollar one and you have part of
[9:16] it coming out one year and part of it
[9:17] coming out the majority of it coming out
[9:19] the next year. So you can what's the
[9:21] rationale of peace?
[9:23] » You need to have in reserves that year
[9:25] end you need to have 105%
[9:28] or you're collecting 105% of your next
[9:31] year's um payments. So if you have at
[9:34] year end if there's like the one we have
[9:36] one year left in that bond lately if I
[9:38] remember right
[9:39] » This is the one that
[9:41] well over
[9:44] taking
[9:44] » So at year end
[9:45] » Not going to be leving anymore
[9:47] » Y at year end you have enough you have
[9:49] over that 105% to pay the next year's
[9:52] bond payment. So we're able to pull part
[9:55] of that out, leave 105% in there to pay
[9:57] the remaining bond payment
[9:59] » For the 978,000 that's getting pulled
[10:01] out the next year. That represents 105%
[10:04] of the payment
[10:05] » That was the remaining which fund do you
[10:08] remember what I can take a look at quick
[10:11] » 2028 it's the large
[10:16] » And arguing I just doesn't look right
[10:20] » Yeah know some of this we tried to
[10:21] really move around
[10:24] » Capital purchase
[10:25] » Keep capital keep your levies
[10:28] level so we don't have ups and downs so
[10:30] everything it all kind of went back to
[10:32] the levies in the end and funding your
[10:35] capital purchases, but um trying to keep
[10:39] that levy levy flat rather than a 10%
[10:42] year, 3% the next, those types of
[10:44] things. We tried to keep that flat, move
[10:46] money around, move the available funds
[10:49] around accordingly. So, going back to
[10:51] that one, let me see if I can give you a
[10:54] good answer. Yeah, if there's a
[10:56] restriction or whatever, but it just
[10:57] seems like why not put it in the
[10:59] equipment fund same year this other
[11:02] money goes in and make interest in that
[11:04] bucket instead of making interest,
[11:08] » You earn the same amount of interest no
[11:10] matter what fund it's in.
[11:13] So, it really makes no difference what
[11:15] fund it's in. Um, because you're making
[11:18] the same
[11:21] » I seem to remember that from me.
[11:27] But it's just where it's coming.
[11:29] » Yeah.
[11:33] » It ends up
[11:36] that number
[11:37] » 2028
[11:39] » 2020.
[11:41] » But that freedom is pretty no matter
[11:43] what kind of bond you have, you have the
[11:44] freedom.
[11:45] » 328.
[11:48] » Yeah. Yeah, we to we transferred out
[11:49] $200,000 in 2028 and then the remaining
[11:54] was was transferred out in 29. That 228
[11:59] was used for
[12:10] putting the general project funds
[12:12] probably to keep that capital where it
[12:14] needed to be and then or keep to just to
[12:17] fund the capital fund that year and then
[12:19] move the rest of it out the following
[12:20] year when the bond was actually paid
[12:22] off. So it was more of a needed the the
[12:26] project project funds needed it that
[12:28] year. The equipment fund needed it that
[12:30] year. Um so we left the remaining in the
[12:32] debt to was actually paid off.
[12:34] » So that could be done all other.
[12:38] » Okay. So that's that's good. I want to
[12:42] know if there's reason.
[12:43] » Yeah. There's there's real no reason for
[12:46] it other than just to
[12:49] » Yeah. No, there is no specific reason
[12:52] why it was would have been done in one
[12:54] year, not the other. other than just
[12:55] managing.
[12:57] » Okay, thank you.
[13:00] » Any others so far?
[13:05] » Okay. Um,
[13:08] so I think that was that one. The next
[13:09] slide then, citywide cash balances.
[13:12] So this shows where your cash balances
[13:15] sit by um fund type. So general fund is
[13:21] that orange color. Um you can see that
[13:24] If we just look across where that bar
[13:26] is, that stays pretty stable through the
[13:27] length of the plan. Um, no real change
[13:30] there. Um, right now there's we I think
[13:33] it's like mid70s for reserves for your
[13:38] based on your um next year's
[13:40] expenditures. Your expenditures are
[13:42] rising throughout the throughout this
[13:45] plan due to how 3% increase in your
[13:48] general expenditures and 6% in your um
[13:51] personnel, but that cash balance stays
[13:53] the same. So your that cash balance
[13:55] reserves is actually decreasing relative
[13:57] to your expenditures but overall
[14:00] maintaining its balance. That makes
[14:02] sense.
[14:04] Um the
[14:07] green or the yellow is your special
[14:09] revenue funds. The green the lighter
[14:11] green is your capital projects. You can
[14:13] see how that uh it's at just over $10
[14:15] million now. A lot of that money is the
[14:18] the money that was left in there at the
[14:20] end of 25 for the police project for the
[14:22] police department. So that gets spent
[14:24] down in 26 this year currently and it
[14:27] stays fairly stable through 2030. And
[14:29] again, that's intentional intentional to
[14:32] try to keep funding those capital
[14:33] purchases. Um so you have a a reserve in
[14:36] there at the end of each year to fund
[14:37] the next year's capital. Uh the black
[14:40] the majority of your cash is sitting in
[14:42] your enterprise funds and you can see
[14:44] that spike in 26 with the electric bond
[14:47] that would is not going to be spent on
[14:49] year end. So then we'll stay stabilize
[14:52] to about $30 million um going forward.
[14:58] Next slide is your general fund
[15:00] reserves. So this is what I was just
[15:02] talking about. Your cash balance is just
[15:04] finished just under $7 million and 25
[15:07] and 30 we stay just um $1 million less
[15:12] than that.
[15:15] Uh 78.3%
[15:17] reserve ratio in 2030. So fairly similar
[15:21] to where you're at right now, but
[15:22] slightly down. Capital capital purchaser
[15:26] moved to the um capital or the yeah
[15:30] capital fund LGA is gradually taken
[15:32] away. Um
[15:36] that's about it for that. Next slide. So
[15:39] this just shows cash balances by fund.
[15:41] Similar to the chart we had earlier,
[15:43] special revenue funds go from 1.2 2
[15:45] million in total down to just8 million.
[15:49] That was um in 2027 there was a decline
[15:53] because that's 2017 small cities project
[15:57] resources are going to be utilized that
[15:58] year. So those have been sitting there
[16:00] for quite a number of years now and I
[16:02] believe you have an opportunity to use
[16:04] those funds. So those will be used in
[16:05] 2027.
[16:08] Uh debt remains pretty stable right
[16:10] around $5 million in debt reserves. your
[16:13] capital
[16:15] 12 million down to about four million
[16:16] again the um finishing the police
[16:20] department as well as some other
[16:22] projects completing for closeouts and
[16:25] then enterprise funds goes from 21 to 30
[16:28] in cash so building reserves there in
[16:30] the enterprise funds
[16:32] next slide um again looking at um just
[16:38] the enterprise funds your water electric
[16:40] sewer storm and Gulf
[16:42] You can see the bottom line that the
[16:44] golf fund is a positive cash balance at
[16:47] the edge of 25 and 26 it will be as well
[16:50] and 27 right around that zero and 28 is
[16:53] when you start to go um below zero with
[16:56] your with the golf fund ending about in
[17:00] 2030 about 636,000.
[17:02] Uh Josh mentioned last week that the
[17:06] golf um board is said spending up to
[17:10] $150,000 of capital each year and no
[17:13] more in the golf fund. That is that
[17:16] holds true all the way through 2029. In
[17:18] 2030 um in the plan we had 200 about
[17:22] 250,000. So about $100,000 more
[17:26] than what the the board had said. We
[17:30] already had it in the plan. and that's
[17:31] what was on the the golf planned
[17:34] expenditure. So that's what's in there.
[17:36] But $100,000 um you're still $530,000.
[17:41] So there's still an issue there with the
[17:42] golf fund, I guess, is what I'm trying
[17:43] to say.
[17:44] » And I think of note as we discussed that
[17:45] a lot of this plan across the board is
[17:47] working off of exactly what the CIP
[17:50] approved CIP says today. So it doesn't
[17:52] take into account that we may look at it
[17:54] and push this back or push that back.
[17:56] And so this is taking exactly what was
[17:58] approved and putting on a piece of paper
[18:00] of how they came out. It's in any given
[18:02] year we push back quite a bit of
[18:04] equipment that we can make work for
[18:05] another year. So
[18:07] » Right that's
[18:08] » We're using 30% for
[18:11] enterprise.
[18:12] » Yeah.
[18:16] » Um the next slide property tax levy. So
[18:20] this these are the I mean I would say
[18:23] these are fairly important ones. Um so
[18:26] these are the levies here. So general
[18:28] fund levy obviously is your largest um
[18:32] levy in the city. You can see how that's
[18:34] increasing about $2 million over the
[18:37] from 25 to 2030. Um se which makes up
[18:41] 76% of your overall levy is going to the
[18:44] general fund. Um and then with those
[18:47] levies total levies you're 5.5 to 7.2%
[18:50] increases on an annual basis. So what's
[18:54] the impact of reduction of LG?
[18:57] » Um by the end of in 2030
[19:01] we're pulling
[19:08] [clears throat]
[19:11] by 2030 we're pulling
[19:16] $180,000.
[19:18] So in 28 we pull about $60,000 out. 29
[19:25] 120
[19:27] then 180. So over the three years
[19:31] since we started pulling pulling about
[19:33] $360,000 out
[19:36] and putting into
[19:38] » Are you wondering whether the LG either
[19:40] in that amount does that?
[19:42] » No, I'm just wondering you know just the
[19:45] effect of this plan of taking the LG out
[19:49] and moving it to capital which is a
[19:52] different concept
[19:54] in the past. That's what I was just
[19:57] trying to
[19:59] » From 20 and this is in this
[20:02] no context to why we kept it level flat
[20:05] the rest of the time. In 25 you got
[20:07] 1.185 million in LJ 26 1.189 so a $4,000
[20:13] increase in 27 1.93 another $4,000
[20:16] increase. So you're not really getting
[20:18] much change in your LG each year. So we
[20:21] just kept it flat for the remaining but
[20:24] we just clarify. I think
[20:28] if you could define cap the new
[20:33] strategy here to move this
[20:35] » The capital equipment and general
[20:37] projects
[20:39] » What is they're two different
[20:42] » Capital equipment then it's pretty
[20:44] self-explanator I think it's just what
[20:45] we have in our CIP
[20:47] » What is the definition what's eligible
[20:49] for qualifies for something that would
[20:51] be cons
[20:54] » Those would be more like
[20:57] » Street projects. Street type projects.
[20:59] Yeah,
[21:00] » That's kind of maybe um let me see if I
[21:03] have
[21:06] I think we have a capital
[21:09] tab in there.
[21:13] General projects.
[21:15] So, that's going to include um building
[21:18] improvements, um some sidewalk repairs,
[21:23] um picnic shelter,
[21:26] building Yeah. build park improvements,
[21:28] park building improvements.
[21:30] » Kind of sound like some of the things in
[21:31] our CIP.
[21:32] » Yeah. Yeah, definitely. That aren't
[21:34] equipment
[21:36] would be in the general projects,
[21:38] but equipment
[21:41] » General.
[21:44] Yeah, these would be non. Well, I mean,
[21:46] you'd have to do building improvements
[21:48] every so many years probably, but
[21:49] » Probably not the same building,
[21:50] » Right?
[21:51] » Okay.
[21:52] » Not every right
[21:54] » Because that that is a [clears throat]
[21:55] different way that the city be looking.
[21:59] » Yeah. So eventually if if this continue
[22:03] on that
[22:05] um policy, let's say, then you could use
[22:08] your LGA and you could fund your
[22:10] different projects around that instead
[22:13] of um having to increase your levies.
[22:16] You just you're getting a million
[22:18] dollars to put in your capital fund each
[22:19] year from levy from LGA. And if you
[22:22] don't get it for whatever reason, if the
[22:24] state decides not to give you LG
[22:26] anymore, then you're you just won't you
[22:28] have to find a different way to fund
[22:30] your projects. It's not like you're out
[22:32] on the reoccurring type stuff that you
[22:34] would have to operate as a city
[22:36] » With this new strategy or in this new
[22:38] way of looking at it or doing it. It
[22:40] sounds good to me, but I'm just trying
[22:42] to f
[22:52] advocate here is that start doing it so
[22:55] much
[22:58] fun
[23:00] projects would seem to be the one that
[23:03] there may is there a risk that you don't
[23:06] have the same kind of discipline
[23:09] to
[23:11] manage the the funds in this way because
[23:15] you might have
[23:18] unscrupulous city administrator
[23:20] known here, but someone that says,
[23:23] "Well, geez, we have $450,000 in
[23:27] this project because we have the money
[23:29] there."
[23:30] » Y
[23:31] » The merits of a project that was I mean,
[23:34] how about the discipline? Is there other
[23:36] cities doing it this way? Do they have
[23:38] any issues with that?
[23:40] » I haven't seen any issues. I think it
[23:42] works best when you have a a fiveyear
[23:44] capital plan out there, though. So if
[23:46] you spend all the or project plan,
[23:48] whatever you want to call it, um if you
[23:50] spend all the money in the first year,
[23:52] you're not going to have any money the
[23:53] second year to fund the rest of the
[23:54] project. So and the council has to
[23:57] decide how to spend those dollars, not
[24:00] one city administrator or whoever can
[24:03] make those decisions. So everybody would
[24:05] have to agree on that. and potentially
[24:08] like sometimes you you're building funds
[24:10] up in a in a capital fund for all these
[24:13] different things and you need a fire
[24:15] truck. Well, you have to have a fire
[24:17] truck. So, sometimes priorities change,
[24:19] too. So, it does give you flexibility.
[24:22] Um, but you can also fund issue a debt,
[24:26] some type of debt to fund the firetruck,
[24:27] too. But there's always that opportunity
[24:29] that, hey, we could put these things
[24:31] off, red, reallocate these funds to a
[24:34] different purpose, but here's our plan.
[24:37] I definitely like being able to segment
[24:39] this stuff
[24:41] is for me anyway to see it's hard to
[24:44] match up operational how we're doing in
[24:47] budgeting when it's mixed in with the
[24:49] general expenses
[24:52] is this capital purchase coming
[24:54] partially from cash partially hard to
[24:57] follow this would seem to be a little
[25:00] clearer way of doing
[25:02] » I I like doing it that way getting the
[25:04] capital out of the general fund I think
[25:06] I think it's clear too. Then you know
[25:08] you can if you want to levy this dollar
[25:11] amount for our capital and we'll
[25:13] purchase our capital based on the funds
[25:14] we have and what we will have with the
[25:16] fund rather than based on the last
[25:20] minute need type stuff. You can plan
[25:21] those things I think a little bit
[25:22] better.
[25:25] But that doesn't like I think Josh
[25:26] mentioned earlier it doesn't say that
[25:29] you're not committed to those things
[25:30] each year either. Sometimes you want to
[25:31] push off some of that capital. Maybe you
[25:33] have in your plan that you're going to
[25:34] buy five new pickups this year, whatever
[25:37] it is, but you only need one because the
[25:39] other three, four have been are still
[25:42] really good, but maybe your plan is to
[25:44] replace pickups every five years, but
[25:47] maybe they lasting a long longer. You're
[25:50] not using one of them for whatever
[25:51] reason, right?
[25:52] » Um, you have flexibility to make those
[25:54] changes.
[26:02] Uh, next slide.
[26:05] This is tax capacity
[26:08] and tax rates. So, um, the one on the
[26:12] right is your tax uh rate.
[26:14] [clears throat]
[26:15] So, at the end of 25, you're around 45%.
[26:19] at the end of the plan 2030
[26:22] um
[26:25] you're at 50
[26:28] uh 1% almost 51% I believe you can see
[26:32] on the left slide then you're going from
[26:36] about a $12 million um tax this is the
[26:39] tax base 12 million $12 million tax
[26:42] capacity to just over $14 million in tax
[26:46] capacity. So your tax capacity is rising
[26:49] but your levies are also rising and
[26:52] which then creates your tax rates to
[26:54] increase as well from that 46% to
[27:00] 51%.
[27:04] » So the next slide shows what that effect
[27:07] is on the property owner. Uh so we used
[27:11] for uh median home value and this was
[27:15] got taken from the county in 2026 the
[27:19] median home value is 340,500 in the
[27:22] city.
[27:24] So um with your 2026 tax rates
[27:29] they're paying someone in that property
[27:31] value home is paying about $1,500 in
[27:34] taxes to the city. Um
[27:38] pay other taxes to other jurisdictions
[27:41] as well. So, the tax bill is more than
[27:44] 1500, but by the end of the plan year or
[27:48] this plan, um
[27:51] they're paying for that. And that home
[27:53] value, we increased 3% each year in
[27:56] market value. Um they're spending just
[28:00] over $1,900. So, about a $400 increase
[28:03] in property taxes in that fiveyear
[28:06] period.
[28:09] with these with these tax levy
[28:11] increases.
[28:15] I think they're they're better outlined
[28:17] in the actual plan itself, but the levy
[28:20] increases um were
[28:27] 6%
[28:29] 6% 7% 6% I believe
[28:33] that's what we have. I think they're in
[28:36] the they're in the regular plan itself
[28:38] in the back. But um
[28:41] so and that would that's about a $400
[28:44] increase in property taxes on that
[28:45] average $340,000
[28:48] value.
[28:58] » We don't we just know I just know that
[29:02] half of the homes are higher, half the
[29:03] homes are lower.
[29:06] » [laughter]
[29:09] » Precise.
[29:14] [laughter]
[29:16] » Well, Brad, that actually be the median
[29:18] home price, not the average.
[29:20] » Yeah.
[29:23] » Median.
[29:24] » No, absolutely.
[29:27] [clears throat]
[29:27] » Uh the next slide is uh debt peaks
[29:30] again. uh peaks in 2026 this year, end
[29:34] of this year, and then declines through
[29:36] 2030. So, we do also have some
[29:38] additional bond issues in uh 28,9 and 30
[29:43] with street projects. So, we have about
[29:44] a $1.2 million bond issue, projected
[29:48] bond issue. We may not do it, but we
[29:50] included in the plan about a $1.2
[29:52] million bond issue in those three years.
[29:55] So, that's been built into we tried to
[29:57] incorporate projects that maybe wouldn't
[30:00] be funded with our current reserves in
[30:03] the project funds yet because you know
[30:06] still kind of building those up. But
[30:07] eventually um those could be built up
[30:10] where you would have to issue a $1.2
[30:13] million. Maybe you don't need to issue a
[30:15] $6 million or $600,000 bond or something
[30:18] other than a full you could pay cash for
[30:20] some of those projects eventually.
[30:23] Um not in the plan that we have right
[30:26] now. So right now those are debts are
[30:28] included and offsetting capitals
[30:30] included. So overall, they're not really
[30:32] affecting the cash, but they do affect
[30:34] your levies because we include a levy
[30:36] for those two those additional.
[30:40] Next slide, your the capital investment
[30:42] intention.
[30:44] So 27, you have a a jump in capital um
[30:49] that we do or it's the electric facility
[30:53] um in 27 spending that bond down. And
[30:56] then you can see the capital the
[30:59] projects do kind of fluctuate. Those are
[31:00] detailed out in the main plan themselves
[31:03] outlining which projects you're spending
[31:05] which capital um amount you're spending.
[31:08] » So like for the electric also projection
[31:12] with the revenue that we're getting from
[31:15] » Yep. Y [clears throat]
[31:19] should all be
[31:23] okay. And then last second to last slide
[31:26] here,
[31:28] uh just with just a kind of a summary on
[31:30] the risks go that we kind of saw going
[31:33] in here. Golf fund deficit. We talked
[31:35] about that. Uh personnel growth at six%
[31:39] annual um assumption.
[31:43] Um levy affordability, monitor the levy
[31:45] growth. Again, we tried to levy that or
[31:47] level that out through the through the
[31:50] plan so there's no spikes up or down.
[31:54] Capital execution revisit project
[31:56] timing. So this
[31:59] I mean that's that's a big variable in
[32:01] here is when those projects are going to
[32:03] happen. So some of them may not happen.
[32:05] Again with Josh said we put in here
[32:07] what's in the cap what's in the approved
[32:09] capital plan. So that is something that
[32:11] you as a council approve on an annual
[32:13] basis on what that next year is going to
[32:15] look like. So um and then debt residual
[32:19] confirm that um
[32:22] moving those funds around the way we
[32:24] have them
[32:27] to other debts and capital fund is will
[32:30] work and then the LGA allocation.
[32:36] Last slide take away takeaways. Um
[32:42] just mean assuming we're going to
[32:44] continue to separate the capital out of
[32:47] the general fund and how that's going to
[32:49] be funded with levy and moving the LGA
[32:52] there use of use of annual budget C the
[32:56] IP updates to refresh the assumptions.
[32:58] So it is good to look at update this
[33:01] annually or semi or every other year. um
[33:04] just to keep it see if we're on track as
[33:09] me I as an auditor will be looking at
[33:11] this at the end of 26 and 27 for sure
[33:14] just to make sure we're kind of on track
[33:16] and how I'd like to know how we
[33:18] projected it and how the assumptions
[33:20] turned out and what what changed like to
[33:22] report that back to you as well but uh I
[33:26] guess the one negative thing probably is
[33:28] the golf fund take a look at that but
[33:30] then um just continue the the levy that
[33:35] transfers and reduce a year-to-year
[33:38] volatility in the levy.
[33:42] But overall, I think um I think
[33:45] definitely put a lot of time into it, I
[33:47] think. And um try to again really focus
[33:50] on keeping that levy flat and using your
[33:52] resources to the best use and keeping
[33:56] your levies
[34:00] as low as we we could to fund capital
[34:02] and pay off those debts.
[34:04] » Well, how do we go forward
[34:09] in 2028 to get
[34:14] Do you guys have to do that on the
[34:17] council?
[34:18] » If you wanted an update, we could do it.
[34:19] We definitely could do it. Um, you could
[34:21] use it as a tool. I don't know if we
[34:23] would. I guess we'll see how 26 comes
[34:25] out or 27 progresses. If you're going
[34:27] through 27 and it's coming out and
[34:30] you're kind of following all the
[34:32] assumptions that we kind of had in the
[34:34] plan, cash balances are turning out
[34:36] about what we had. I don't see any
[34:37] reason to update it.
[34:39] » Okay. just use it as a tool going into
[34:41] your 28 budget. If for some reason you
[34:44] decide to not do a project or some other
[34:48] big project comes up that you're not
[34:50] sure how using funds that were dedicated
[34:53] for something else, how that's going to
[34:55] affect the future. I think that may be
[34:57] an opportunity to take a look at it
[34:59] again. And some of it too I think comes
[35:02] down to especially some of these as
[35:03] we're like moving money into whether an
[35:05] equipment fund or like capital projects
[35:08] fund as to okay this is why maybe we are
[35:12] talking about this because maybe by 29
[35:14] we've been doing this for a few years
[35:15] and so we're trying to continue down
[35:17] this course in case somebody's asking um
[35:19] of certainly what we're doing but yeah
[35:21] it seems to me I this becomes a guide as
[35:24] to okay this is kind of what the council
[35:26] was thinking back in the fall of 2026 or
[35:29] whenever the last update was and that is
[35:32] the reason why these decisions have been
[35:34] made to this point as to what we are
[35:36] attempting to achieve
[35:38] not just a why did we lose this last
[35:40] year
[35:42] I
[35:42] » Think it's a good res resource too for
[35:44] new council members coming in um I think
[35:47] some new council members come in with an
[35:49] idea of maybe have better ideas than
[35:52] this and they don't know the background
[35:53] I think this gives a good um story on
[35:57] what the council was thinking where the
[35:58] council was going and why um and maybe
[36:02] kind of changes some of their decisions
[36:04] when they come into council as a new
[36:06] council member.
[36:08] » This intended to be a draft.
[36:11] Um, we can make changes to it. [snorts]
[36:14] » And then just uh
[36:17] myself, I'm assuming
[36:20] the sale of the
[36:22] old Cedar City Center property sale of
[36:26] this building is not included in this
[36:28] projection at all. And then is the grant
[36:31] money
[36:33] figured in here? The payment down?
[36:35] » Yes. So if you go into the document
[36:37] itself, the grant money is figured in
[36:38] there. We figured in the what was it the
[36:40] 500 for this year.
[36:42] » Um I see that I missed it.
[36:45] » Wasn't it on the other side?
[36:47] » Uh if you go into
[36:52] » Well, I remember st I remember it was on
[36:54] the sheet that you showed us as you were
[36:56] making those assumptions, but I don't
[36:57] know how many of those Excel sheets made
[36:59] it into this that was background.
[37:01] » I don't think we put it in as a chart.
[37:05] Um
[37:08] but we did utilize that again.
[37:12] Utilize it. And what is that?
[37:19] » 2025 A B
[37:28] 25 C.
[37:31] [clears throat]
[37:44] Bruce, are you talking about
[37:47] » USDA?
[37:49] » Oh, the million.
[37:51] » I thought he was talking about
[37:53] » Money at first.
[37:58] » Yeah,
[37:59] » I know. We talked about it and you guys
[38:01] work to the
[38:02] be levied for 2025
[38:05] » That particular project
[38:07] » Where would it normally
[38:11] was it meant to go into the debt service
[38:14] fund schedule then
[38:16] » Yeah so the idea behind that since it
[38:18] was given to us to help pay for the
[38:19] police station
[38:20] » No I just meant wise
[38:21] » Oh on your schedule which one should I
[38:23] be looking
[38:38] Don't worry, Rick. I'm dying.
[38:40] » I'll try to wrap it up quick.
[38:42] » I only got four months. I'll be
[38:46] in this little
[38:50] big giant keys.
[38:51] » It's going to be in the new city hall.
[38:52] lock in.
[38:54] » You know those chairs down by the police
[38:56] station, the old police station? We'll
[38:59] put a little plaque on one of those as
[39:00] the memorial
[39:02] » From the 1930s or whatever.
[39:04] » So, we don't have a schedule. We don't
[39:06] have a schedule in there for it. But in
[39:07] 27, we're utilizing 550,000
[39:11] 28 300,000 29 250.
[39:15] » So, it wouldn't show up in your
[39:16] transfers in transfer. not showing up in
[39:18] the transfers because no because it's
[39:20] sitting in it's sitt the money is
[39:22] sitting in that debt fund right now.
[39:25] » Well, it will at the end of in 27 it's
[39:27] sitting in the debt fund. Then it's
[39:30] basically we're not levying 500,000
[39:33] 550,000. We're reducing our levy 550,000
[39:36] and it's basically spending down the
[39:38] reserves in there in that in that fund.
[39:42] So there's
[39:42] » So yeah so when the money comes in it
[39:44] and gets coded directly to that fund
[39:46] » Gets put right into your debt fund and
[39:48] then you'll see once you look at your
[39:51] financial statements you'll see that
[39:53] this debt fund spent $550,000 more than
[39:57] » 500
[39:58] » 500,000 more than what you had um levied
[40:03] because you're utilizing the reserves
[40:05] that are in the fund rather than and
[40:06] those reserves are from the debt or from
[40:08] the grant.
[40:11] million goes into 2026. 500 comes out
[40:14] 2027. That's kind of attributed to that
[40:17] grant.
[40:17] » Yep.
[40:19] » 300 the next year.
[40:23] Yep.
[40:25] » Yep.
[40:26] » So, that's just a a spend down of the
[40:29] reserves that's in there
[40:36] because you're you were theoretically
[40:39] you were supposed to levy 6
[40:42] 20 almost 630,000
[40:45] for that bond. So, you're utilizing that
[40:47] grant.
[40:50] » Yeah. I I think a lot of things went
[40:52] behind the curtain here. When I looked
[40:55] at that was pretty
[41:15] What do you think the big risk areas are
[41:18] for us?
[41:21] fun for sure.
[41:23] » To me, it's more manageable.
[41:28] » What happens if we don't build 39
[41:30] houses?
[41:31] » Yeah. Then your tax rate would go would
[41:35] increase more than what it's showing in
[41:37] here right now,
[41:38] » Right? But I think those assumptions are
[41:40] in this model,
[41:41] » Right?
[41:42] » I hope we do build 39, but so far we
[41:44] built three this year and it's
[41:46] September.
[41:47] » Yeah.
[41:48] » So So, so I think the idea in those
[41:49] years is we would
[41:51] I mean, as we've said before, like we
[41:53] would have to adjust things that we're
[41:54] doing on our side to reduce the spending
[41:56] to match that. Like like I think that's
[41:58] what it is.
[41:59] year on I say yeah on the years that
[42:03] gang buster one year because suddenly
[42:05] three developments pop or build 120
[42:07] homes like then you have the
[42:08] conversation do you try to utilize that
[42:10] in the year you have it or do you try to
[42:14] keep spending down and everyone's
[42:16] everyone kind of paired back that year
[42:18] because of the extra capacity that you
[42:19] weren't expecting.
[42:21] So I I mean it's like with anything like
[42:23] you have to build the assumption in
[42:25] somewhere and I think that's just kind
[42:26] of where
[42:28] they landed based off of this and some
[42:29] of that I think came from the
[42:31] conversations if you remember just with
[42:33] with uh when JPB was here and they were
[42:36] talking about wanting to get going next
[42:38] year and kind of what they may be
[42:39] looking at potentially doing. And so
[42:41] that's kind of where that assumption
[42:42] came from, that assuming that actually
[42:44] does move forward as they seem to be,
[42:47] that is kind of the number they're
[42:48] shooting for building year in year out,
[42:51] » Right?
[42:51] » And I'm all for that and I hope it comes
[42:53] true, you know.
[42:54] » Yeah.
[42:55] » But, you know, still in the back of my
[42:57] mind
[42:59] because we've seen down years
[43:01] » And and I do and as you said, there is
[43:03] zero commercial growth built into this.
[43:06] And so, um,
[43:09] assuming we have a little bit of
[43:10] commercial growth, that'll be stuff that
[43:12] isn't even accounted for in here. It
[43:13] would be revenue that would help pull
[43:17] those levy or tax impacts down
[43:21] » To go in that 35 house that's projected.
[43:26] I guess in my mind, that's not not going
[43:29] to make a lot of difference,
[43:31] but I don't know how you put it into
[43:33] your plan.
[43:34] » Yep.
[43:34] » Even if you build 35 today not going to
[43:37] see the full effect of the tax capacity
[43:39] in 2027
[43:42] and not fully until
[43:47] I'm not sure if you added 35 houses
[43:50] capacity all
[43:54] » You know what I mean
[43:57] » Is it all tax capacity if you're you get
[44:00] permit money for it you know don't we
[44:03] get a certain amount permit
[44:05] » We do money,
[44:06] » But [clears throat] that's a different
[44:08] item.
[44:10] » 18 month.
[44:11] » I don't know how you put it into your
[44:12] rejection. So,
[44:17] » Yeah, we do. So, when we said there was
[44:20] 36 houses going to be added, we added
[44:24] back tax capacity for 36 houses
[44:27] » In 2027.
[44:29] » So, that would be one thing to probably
[44:31] adjust then because I we won't be adding
[44:33] 36 and 27.
[44:36] But there's also an 18month delay
[44:38] between
[44:40] that house and start paying those taxes.
[44:43] Best values like 18 months.
[44:48] » Ken, how quick does that is it like if
[44:50] it has to happen before September or
[44:52] something like that to catch it on the
[44:53] next year?
[44:54] » Yeah, it's about 18 months.
[45:05] And you could certainly put in known
[45:07] commercial activity [clears throat] this
[45:08] year.
[45:14] » Yeah. So 36 houses
[45:18] tax capacity of about $124,000.
[45:22] So it's not a huge impact that's
[45:25] affecting it. So if you were off, if
[45:29] it's 20, it's it's not going to affect
[45:31] it.
[45:32] » But did you license permits and all that
[45:35] stuff?
[45:38] » That's going to help.
[45:40] » We won't even get 120 capacity.
[45:47] » But once you get permits and other
[45:48] stuff,
[45:52] » It could
[45:55] » We get two or 3,000 I don't know. What
[45:57] do you get per house usually?
[45:59] » Not including like connection fees and
[46:01] everything. Probably 4,000
[46:05] permit revenue.
[46:08] » I mean that's higher than what you get
[46:09] in tax.
[46:23] So, what this should be used for, the
[46:25] whole plan is just
[46:27] um built [snorts] into your budgets each
[46:29] year. Um and
[46:33] if if council
[46:36] um if you're at a whatever percentage
[46:39] that levy is that there's some support
[46:41] behind it. It not maybe a levy increase
[46:43] this year doesn't necessarily maybe it's
[46:46] not needed this year. Maybe it is, but
[46:48] is also supporting future years as well.
[46:50] So that's what this plan is going to I
[46:52] think beneficial for.
[46:55] You're not just thinking about one year
[46:56] at a time.
[46:57] I was saying the other thing is going
[46:59] through this plan you see things you
[47:01] mentioned like the fire truck purchase
[47:03] far out to kind of see that and say okay
[47:04] how how are we coming into that fire
[47:07] truck purchase like
[47:08] » Is can you do something this year next
[47:11] year to help kind of pave the way for
[47:13] that so that as we talk it doesn't spike
[47:16] and come back down
[47:24] [clears throat]
[47:29] I guess were there other questions for
[47:31] Brad.
[47:43] So I guess assuming not um or if you
[47:45] guys kind of look over this and have
[47:47] more questions or requested changes
[47:48] certainly let me know. Um and we would I
[47:52] would assume come back here sometime in
[47:54] September. the first meeting probably
[47:56] the second meeting and formally I guess
[47:59] adopt
[48:00] » Accept or accept accept the plan what
[48:03] we've seen so
[48:06] » And by doing that you're not committing
[48:08] to it
[48:09] » Yeah I mean I'll compare it to a
[48:12] comprehensive plan but it's certainly a
[48:14] guide we're using but that can be
[48:16] changed as
[48:18] » Obviously things change even week to
[48:19] week it seems like sometimes
[48:23] » The key is it's changing philosophy.
[48:27] » Yeah. So we this is kind of this is
[48:30] attempting to adopt a philosophy.
[48:49] » It'll just be a shift. I mean it
[48:52] » It shouldn't be labor intensive. It's
[48:54] just our history
[48:57] is going to stay other places, you know,
[49:01] so it'll be even recalling that for a
[49:04] little while that a new fund.
[49:07] We'll have to look back at history. So
[49:10] » I mean I think once it's organized it is
[49:12] going to be really
[49:14] easy to read.
[49:15] » Um it'll just be that beginning infancy
[49:18] stages of
[49:20] Yeah. first couple years of okay, how
[49:22] did we do this last time and have to go
[49:24] back a few different ways?
[49:26] » We're envisioning that like within the
[49:27] fund
[49:29] uh for example in the line by line right
[49:31] now how we have our different uh
[49:33] departments within the fund we'd have a
[49:35] different department to outline that
[49:37] like this was streets equipment this was
[49:40] parks equipment so we'll follow that
[49:50] else.
[49:53] I appreciate it. Thanks. Definitely
[49:59] wise
[50:01] be a good footprint
[50:05] forward if that's
[50:10] going to have a little different council
[50:12] next year.
[50:15] They'll have a
[50:16] idea of the direction that this council.
[50:30] » All right. Good. Thank you.
[50:31] » Thank you.
[50:32] » And if anyone has any questions, we'll
[50:33] shoot them to Josh.
[50:34] » That works.
[50:42] » We do it and approve it.
[50:43] » That sounds great.
[50:44] » All right. Thank you very much.
[50:45] » Thank you.
[50:47] » Thank you very much.
[50:48] » Thank you.
[50:55] » I have a whole bunch of cough drops in
[50:56] my desk. Need one.
[50:58] » I don't think I'd get too close to him.
[51:00] I mean, if you have them or just
[51:02] » You want me to go out in the hall?
[51:03] » Just lob them from here.
[51:05] » Yeah, I'll just roll.
[51:08] » You want me to go up there and sit there
[51:10] look down at you minions?
[51:12] » Can you go virtual? Can you go virtual?
[51:15] » What's that?
[51:16] » Can you go virtual? That's what she
[51:18] thought about
[51:20] your bid all over.
[51:25] » The same thing in bad.
[51:28] » No, I just think I got so
[51:37] » Spring chicken.
[51:40] [laughter]
[51:41] » Thanks for the You're not telling me
[51:43] anything I don't know.
[51:44] » He knows. He says it all the time.
[51:47] » I think being mayor is a good R.
[51:53] » Yeah. You don't have to go do all that
[51:54] golfing all the time.
[51:55] » Yeah. Like the rounds are way down.
[52:05] » Thanks.
[52:06] » See you. [snorts]
[52:08] Next time bring a cooler with beers and
[52:10] we'll meet you at the front door.
[52:12] » [snorts]
[52:16] » You can get a DUI in that thing. Be
[52:18] careful.
[52:19] » No. I get drunk in public. [snorts]
[52:24] » So, obviously now we're going to go over
[52:28] your 27 proposed general
[52:32] overview.
[52:33] » Yep.
[52:33] » I assume we're going to start on what
[52:34] page is that? 70.
[52:39] » Yeah.
[52:43] Yeah. So, just kind of going over the
[52:45] overview here of kind of what we're
[52:47] looking at as well as what has changed a
[52:49] little bit. Of note, I did put a new
[52:53] what if comparison in front of each of
[52:55] you. We will we will be putting this on
[52:57] the website. On Friday, late Friday
[53:00] afternoon, I did get the Mass County
[53:03] properties and how they would lay out on
[53:04] this graph um for them. So of note uh as
[53:10] you look at that giant sheet on the very
[53:13] so of the the middle
[53:16] little middle excel graph over there on
[53:18] the very right hand side it will lay out
[53:22] how the various the 1268 properties in
[53:27] sewer county and the 157 properties in
[53:29] Scott County um how they changed in
[53:32] value and a lot of that change in value
[53:34] is going to reflect um how your property
[53:38] taxes will change in the coming year. Of
[53:41] note, as you look at it, uh there were
[53:44] only
[53:46] 12 properties in on Lassour County side
[53:49] that will be lowering in value in 2027.
[53:52] Um compared to 703 properties, 703 I
[53:56] believe that that um on the Scott County
[53:59] side. So
[54:02] generally Lassour County properties will
[54:04] probably be slightly more impacted and
[54:06] Scott County properties will be slightly
[54:07] less impacted on a whole just based on
[54:11] so
[54:12] and then the other sheet that I just
[54:14] passed out to you uh updated that
[54:17] average tax impact on there. Um and I
[54:21] know at the last meeting I believe Sean
[54:23] you had asked well what was it in prior
[54:25] years? I went back as far as I could
[54:27] find it. Um, able to get that average
[54:29] tax impact which got me back to 2022.
[54:32] Um, and so that is kind of how the
[54:34] average tax impact has changed over the
[54:36] last six years. Um, going forward with
[54:39] that. So,
[54:42] uh, yeah, just kind of going through the
[54:45] uh kind of proposed general fund uh
[54:48] stuff. We have uh, as we mentioned the
[54:51] budget in front of us. I believe our
[54:53] last one uh when we started was around
[54:56] that 13% range if I remember right. Um
[54:59] this one uh we are down to 7.56
[55:04] and that is mostly taking a change um
[55:06] and using slightly more of that police
[55:10] station uh money up front instead of
[55:13] stretching it out over about a seven or
[55:14] eight year periods uh kind of condensing
[55:16] it down to a four-year ramp down. Uh, of
[55:20] note as we look at that, uh, that still
[55:23] may even be slightly high. I know I'
[55:25] mentioned that we would have about
[55:26] $250,000 left. Um, I know that we are
[55:30] kind of at this point working down
[55:32] towards some of the final pays. And so,
[55:34] of that 250, I put 200 of it in there
[55:38] um, at this point and kind of waiting on
[55:41] that final number. I didn't want to put
[55:43] 250 in there and then it come out to be
[55:44] like 243 and have to back that off. So,
[55:47] um, there is somewhere
[55:49] between zero and 50,000 that that debt
[55:53] service levy there's the potential to
[55:55] decrease that here um as we get those
[55:58] final payouts
[56:00] uh
[56:01] » Which is what like 3/4%
[56:03] » Ish yeah
[56:04] » So the magic number is still 7.56
[56:07] » 7 7.56 is where the current numbers are
[56:12] sitting in front of us
[56:13] » So none of this assumes the adoption of
[56:15] this
[56:19] Oh, or of of the the plan.
[56:22] » Uh that is correct. Like they they kind
[56:24] of worked through all this was worked
[56:26] through separately from what they worked
[56:28] through.
[56:29] » Right.
[56:30] Why is it 7.5?
[56:33] » Yeah.
[56:35] » Yep.
[56:36] » And this seven.
[56:37] » But but yes, is this if we were to take
[56:39] another 50 out of that, that drops us
[56:41] down to like a 6.8 something. So it
[56:44] actually drops us slightly below where
[56:45] they shot.
[56:48] » Well, I mean, if we would say we want to
[56:50] match
[56:52] at seven and then you said there's
[56:53] another 200,000.
[56:56] » No, he took the 200,00
[57:00] that that projection has the 500 built
[57:02] in. I've only built 450 of it into this
[57:05] because I want to make sure that I'd
[57:07] mentioned that we were going to have
[57:08] $253,000
[57:10] left over from unspent construction
[57:13] contingency funds.
[57:14] » Right. And that's not in this number.
[57:16] » That is built into that number.
[57:17] » Oh, yes. You
[57:19] » Yes. Yeah. We Yeah, we built into that
[57:20] and they built in the full number to
[57:21] that. I only put because remember we
[57:24] came we had 250 in here last time. So I
[57:27] put of the remaining estimated 253. I
[57:31] slid over 200 of it knowing that I
[57:34] wanted to make sure we got to the end of
[57:35] the project and didn't spend money then
[57:37] have to like back it off down to like
[57:39] two 235 or something. Yeah. So, in the
[57:42] next month or so, we should be able to
[57:44] wrap that up and potentially take off
[57:46] another up to $50,000 off of that debt
[57:50] service if we wanted to.
[57:51] » I think you're looking at 6% then 6
[57:55] » 6.8 something like that. Is that about
[57:58] the only differences from the numbers in
[58:00] here?
[58:01] » Uh so the other big change um
[58:06] uh I believe came out of the uh parks
[58:09] board and Ken can Ken can correct me if
[58:11] I'm wrong. They reduced their number
[58:13] down to was that 30,000
[58:16] project that was built into this
[58:18] » I believe.
[58:21] that would that wouldn't really affect
[58:23] this projection this scenario we're
[58:26] using
[58:28] capital fund. So that won't affect
[58:30] » Correct. Yes. And and and the thing the
[58:32] thing they did with a lot of their
[58:33] projections is they took our 26 numbers
[58:36] and they just built in the assumptions.
[58:37] So everything went up 3% or everything
[58:40] went up 6% or that sort of thing. And so
[58:42] when we work through it, we're a little
[58:43] more nuanced with it. So we may be
[58:46] slightly higher or slightly lower based
[58:47] off maybe supplies went up 3.4% or wages
[58:52] only went up 5.7%. So um they they had
[58:56] very
[58:57] uh flatbased assumptions rolling through
[59:00] whereas ours are getting more nuanced
[59:02] than what they've gotten into 2028
[59:05] further. I would see that make a big
[59:06] difference but 2027
[59:08] » 2027 we should be fairly tight because I
[59:11] know they did ask us kind of where
[59:12] things were landing at this point. So
[59:14] yeah, I mean if you calculate out that
[59:16] additional um 50,000 if that's where
[59:19] that ends up, we would be very close to
[59:21] where they land on their overall
[59:23] increase.
[59:30] So I guess as other things of note that
[59:32] we we had mentioned, I did include in
[59:35] there um the
[59:42] historic market adjustments. I'm not
[59:43] sure which page this lands on for you
[59:45] guys because I look at the HTML version
[59:48] of the packet versus the PDF version. Um
[59:54] but it goes kind of breaks down uh wage
[59:59] growth versus inflation measures as we
[1:00:01] have done over the last um few years.
[1:00:05] I guess of note I know last time we
[1:00:07] talked uh social security colo was
[1:00:10] estimating at 3.7 um uh inflation
[1:00:14] pressures actually have come back quite
[1:00:15] [clears throat] a bit here in June and
[1:00:17] July uh in fact have gone uh slightly
[1:00:19] negative and so um I think the last
[1:00:23] sheet I had down it was about a uh 3%
[1:00:26] CPI up through May and it's down to a
[1:00:29] 2.7 just based off June and July going
[1:00:31] back. I don't know where that's going to
[1:00:33] land. uh social [snorts] security
[1:00:35] estimates I could find were sitting at
[1:00:37] about 3.6 now instead of 3.7, but that
[1:00:40] number becomes finalized in October. Uh
[1:00:43] and so we should know more at that
[1:00:44] point. Anecdotally, uh more numbers have
[1:00:47] been kind of coming in from surrounding
[1:00:49] communities and a lot of people are
[1:00:51] ending up in that 3 to 5% range. Um kind
[1:00:55] of across the board with a lot of them
[1:00:56] hitting right around that four. Uh the
[1:00:59] budget in front of us does have 4%
[1:01:00] worked into it. Um, [clears throat] and
[1:01:03] I guess at this point, certainly being a
[1:01:04] preliminary budget, I would recommend we
[1:01:07] leave it there as we wait to see how
[1:01:10] things are going to play out in the
[1:01:11] coming months. Uh,
[1:01:14] I know here in September, we'll
[1:01:17] certainly set our preliminary not to
[1:01:18] exceed. So, if this particular budget
[1:01:22] ends up getting um this levy number set,
[1:01:25] that would basically mean that a 7.56%
[1:01:28] increase is the highest that we would be
[1:01:30] able to do as we continue to um work on
[1:01:34] numbers such as health insurance and all
[1:01:36] the other stuff and rate equipment and
[1:01:38] see what we can figure out.
[1:01:44] The other thing I did put and I kind of
[1:01:46] put it as a narrative in the packet. We
[1:01:47] can certainly talk through it if you'd
[1:01:49] like. Uh I know we kind of had a small
[1:01:52] discussion last time about how to handle
[1:01:56] um potential sal well sorry wage salary
[1:02:00] scale adjustments. Um, and I just I kind
[1:02:03] of put my thoughts into a couple
[1:02:04] paragraphs in here. Um, kind of
[1:02:07] evaluating on uh organizations and how
[1:02:10] they weigh the tradeoffs between
[1:02:13] percentage base um raises or flat dollar
[1:02:17] adjustments for scales.
[1:02:19] And I kind of talk about how in my
[1:02:23] opinion a lot of times as
[1:02:27] organizations do this uh wage structures
[1:02:29] are designed to reflect various levels
[1:02:32] of responsibility, training,
[1:02:34] supervision, and ultimately um
[1:02:37] accountability for various positions. Uh
[1:02:40] and a percentage raise keeps that
[1:02:43] relative distance between the various
[1:02:45] job levels the same.
[1:02:48] basically ensuring that senior and
[1:02:50] specialized staff are rewarded for their
[1:02:52] added responsibility and accountability
[1:02:53] that they're required to do. Um, and
[1:02:56] keeps us competitive with uh the outside
[1:02:58] job market and those around us um to try
[1:03:02] to retain those
[1:03:04] people because that exper that
[1:03:06] experience is invaluable ultimately as
[1:03:08] staff turnover and you're having to you
[1:03:11] lose a lot of experience in those upper
[1:03:14] levels if uh if as they leave. So, by
[1:03:19] contrast, there are certainly benefits
[1:03:21] to doing a flat dollar raise. Um,
[1:03:23] certainly to the lower wage positions
[1:03:26] and entry level staff. Um, it certainly
[1:03:29] helps with immediate cost of living
[1:03:30] pressures, though it does create a
[1:03:32] problem with wage compensate or
[1:03:33] compression. I don't know if you
[1:03:35] remember, um, when Autosolve was going
[1:03:38] through their
[1:03:40] stuff. I know they spoke to it. I think
[1:03:41] just about every time they talk to us
[1:03:43] and I they spoke to it to the greater
[1:03:45] council as well is constantly doing wage
[1:03:47] compression tests to ensure that there
[1:03:50] is still a
[1:03:52] um
[1:03:54] maybe reward or incentive is maybe the
[1:03:57] better word um for uh high quality staff
[1:04:01] to want to move up into a position with
[1:04:05] higher levels of accountability and
[1:04:06] responsibility. um as as those wages
[1:04:10] compress uh you start looking at it and
[1:04:13] going it's not even worth moving
[1:04:14] potentially up and being held to a
[1:04:17] higher standard and having to be more
[1:04:19] accountable for the not only my own
[1:04:21] actions but the actions of others. Um
[1:04:24] and so part of by keeping it a
[1:04:26] percentage base it helps keep that
[1:04:28] compression and um reduced. So, I feel
[1:04:32] like I talked around that and didn't
[1:04:33] really have a good auditory way of
[1:04:36] presenting that, but hopefully my my
[1:04:39] writing made a little more sense on
[1:04:41] that. But we can certainly talk about
[1:04:42] that because I know we did last time.
[1:04:44] » Is laughing at the city manager allowed?
[1:04:48] » You wouldn't be the first one, Rick.
[1:04:52] » Well, I mentioned last time I think 4%'s
[1:04:56] higher side, much higher side than what
[1:04:58] I would comfortable with or at least
[1:05:02] But then I've also expressed in the past
[1:05:04] my
[1:05:06] experience
[1:05:09] of using cola as a guide to increases
[1:05:14] from my past experience
[1:05:18] businesses.
[1:05:21] But so I I try to think about that and
[1:05:24] when I look at the projections we have
[1:05:26] in the financial projections
[1:05:29] that kind of rings rings a little louder
[1:05:32] when I think about that we use 6% is an
[1:05:35] annual increase cost me we I mentioned
[1:05:40] in the past that that trajectory is
[1:05:43] pretty high and to think that that would
[1:05:46] go on
[1:05:48] there's just not enough leverage to try
[1:05:50] to manage your cost
[1:05:53] and
[1:05:55] I think through more about that I
[1:05:58] brought up the fixed things and part of
[1:06:02] the trouble with the fixed thing I think
[1:06:04] when we talked about last my mind to
[1:06:07] think about it was that
[1:06:10] treating that increase as a kind of a
[1:06:12] cola but we're trying to do two things
[1:06:16] with it I think about
[1:06:20] better to think about it separately. But
[1:06:23] if we want to do cola or something
[1:06:25] that's
[1:06:27] odd to cola, then we look at adopting a
[1:06:32] number that's flat
[1:06:35] and another number that's percentage is
[1:06:38] a small amount. Purpose would be to try
[1:06:41] to match not match to try to influence
[1:06:47] Gale to be more
[1:06:49] But I do have a little I do have trouble
[1:06:52] a little trouble right now that we're
[1:06:53] looking at
[1:06:57] such a number like that that most of
[1:06:59] that would be
[1:07:01] used in a sense to
[1:07:04] address the competitive issue.
[1:07:07] after we just did it adopted this study
[1:07:11] last year and so closely done it just
[1:07:15] seems like a very high number.
[1:07:18] You look at the cost of inflation
[1:07:21] for the typical homeowner. It's about
[1:07:23] $2,100.
[1:07:27] That effect is the same for everybody.
[1:07:29] That's not by the amount of money you
[1:07:34] increase based on the price level. price
[1:07:37] level from one year to the next.
[1:07:40] But the dollar amount of change is a
[1:07:42] dollar
[1:07:44] not tied to your income. So if you
[1:07:47] wanted to look at whole line wanted to
[1:07:50] adopt it
[1:07:54] then me that justifies possibly a flat
[1:08:00] I don't believe flat numbers are good at
[1:08:02] trying to invest the competitive nature
[1:08:04] trying to keep your salary schedule but
[1:08:07] in that part of it I even wonder
[1:08:10] adopting a I'm
[1:08:12] uncomfortable because I don't I don't
[1:08:14] know that
[1:08:16] operates that way. If we just use
[1:08:17] percentages to increase a schedule is
[1:08:21] the competitive nature of each position
[1:08:24] is different. Every position not
[1:08:28] uniform. Their demand and supply of
[1:08:31] different types of positions are
[1:08:33] different. Really maybe should be
[1:08:35] addressing that within
[1:08:38] salary schedule.
[1:08:45] You might have a small increase both
[1:08:48] schedule
[1:08:52] that we're looking at something that
[1:08:54] really represents almost 3% for
[1:08:58] adjustment for
[1:09:01] just seems
[1:09:03] like we're not hitting the right mark
[1:09:05] and I'm just concerned that
[1:09:09] it trajectory here
[1:09:13] Too much of a 4% increase is going
[1:09:17] going is adjusting expansion almost to
[1:09:22] the highest too much
[1:09:26] because it's addressing much more than
[1:09:28] the cost of living.
[1:09:32] I won't need to do that but obviously
[1:09:34] the cost of living
[1:09:36] income is different.
[1:09:46] I I don't know where we want to go with
[1:09:49] this, but
[1:09:54] » One of the other items that kind of
[1:09:57] confuses a little is that we're talking
[1:10:00] about potential cost of living. Um, in
[1:10:04] your memo here, Josh, it says, for
[1:10:06] example, a 3% raise means an entry level
[1:10:11] even an increase proportional to the
[1:10:15] area word is blocked out but it protects
[1:10:17] the fairness and ensures senior and
[1:10:19] specialized staff are rewarded for their
[1:10:21] added responsibility etc. Isn't that
[1:10:24] what the steps are supposed to do is
[1:10:26] that you get increased to the next step
[1:10:28] because that added responsibility
[1:10:33] bettered your responsib
[1:10:39] whereas
[1:10:41] OLA is to address the cost of living. So
[1:10:43] it's to me it's two different buckets.
[1:10:45] Well, so so this was commenting on how a
[1:10:48] percentage increase versus a flat dollar
[1:10:51] » And and and so the idea being that over
[1:10:54] time um
[1:10:56] relative to each other that entry level
[1:10:59] if you do a flat one over time relative
[1:11:01] to each other
[1:11:03] » They basically get closer and closer
[1:11:05] whereas the percentage keeps them keeps
[1:11:07] them spaced apart. Um
[1:11:11] and so and so that's kind of what that
[1:11:12] was commenting on. Not I mean you're not
[1:11:14] wrong that the step the step as we have
[1:11:17] used it is basically a reward for
[1:11:21] increased knowledge and increased value
[1:11:23] that somebody brings to for sure. Um
[1:11:27] this is commenting less on a single
[1:11:29] person within a position and more of a
[1:11:32] position versus a position basis. And so
[1:11:35] instead of saying um accountant
[1:11:41] relative to a
[1:11:44] utility billing clerk and instead of
[1:11:46] looking at instead of looking at the two
[1:11:49] people who are in those two roles, it is
[1:11:51] looking at those two roles themselves
[1:11:52] and is the spacing appropriate. That's
[1:11:55] that's what that means,
[1:11:56] » Right? I I guess it was just maybe part
[1:11:58] of your boarding that staff are rewarded
[1:12:00] for their added responsibility, but
[1:12:03] that's the step.
[1:12:09] And I yeah maybe the better the position
[1:12:12] is rewarded for the added responsibility
[1:12:14] versus a position otherwise it wouldn't
[1:12:16] happen.
[1:12:20] » I'm all for comparison. I I appreciate
[1:12:23] and I think those things should be
[1:12:24] considered when we're looking at other
[1:12:26] municipalities what others might
[1:12:29] but
[1:12:33] qualify that information as much can
[1:12:37] said we don't know exactly for matching
[1:12:39] salary structures
[1:12:42] we adopted a much longer schedule last
[1:12:46] year which created
[1:12:48] an additional benefit
[1:12:52] so we don't know if other cities have
[1:12:55] that going on didn't last year this year
[1:12:58] but I think all of that has to be
[1:13:00] factored in what what's information
[1:13:05] I'm not saying you should discount it,
[1:13:07] but
[1:13:07] » No. No. And I mean I I think there's
[1:13:09] certainly I I will say of all everything
[1:13:11] rolling in that I've seen because a lot
[1:13:13] of times when it gets passed around like
[1:13:14] the question isn't just how are things
[1:13:16] changing. It is what kind of structure
[1:13:18] are we looking at? And so you might look
[1:13:21] at a a city structure who um
[1:13:25] has eight steps. The one I'm staring at
[1:13:27] right now has eight steps um in there,
[1:13:30] but they're looking at 3.8% 8% between
[1:13:32] each step instead of 2.75. So, um
[1:13:37] you're certainly right like every
[1:13:38] everybody's kind of working off a
[1:13:40] slightly different scale.
[1:13:42] I will say our 15 is certainly high
[1:13:45] compared to a lot of people. 2.7 between
[1:13:48] step which is where we are currently at
[1:13:50] is probably on the lower end for a lot
[1:13:51] of people. A lot of people having at
[1:13:54] least around us seem to have a larger
[1:13:56] step in between but
[1:14:02] Well, the problem I see is so if you do
[1:14:06] a 4%
[1:14:08] and the next year do another four that
[1:14:10] 4% gets added to their step, you know,
[1:14:15] plus the 2.75.
[1:14:17] You do a flat one that that hourly rate
[1:14:20] might be way higher.
[1:14:23] » Yeah. I'm not I'm not suggesting a flat
[1:14:25] one.
[1:14:25] » No, I'm just saying that's what like I
[1:14:28] brought up the last
[1:14:30] next comp study you're going to go well
[1:14:31] half our people are way overpaid
[1:14:34] and then do say
[1:14:37] the council never said well we got
[1:14:40] you know cut your pay but it's like
[1:14:43] because we gave us a
[1:14:46] everyone got the same amount it brings
[1:14:49] your that step instead of 1150 it now
[1:14:53] it's 1350 where 4% would have been
[1:14:58] I was just trying to wrestle with, you
[1:15:01] know, our history. As I've said in the
[1:15:02] past, we've not necessarily fall
[1:15:05] over our history.
[1:15:09] Sometimes we've been below. Sometimes
[1:15:14] sometimes when we're low obviously lower
[1:15:17] income
[1:15:19] we're not getting the amount that would
[1:15:21] represent
[1:15:26] year.
[1:15:28] So
[1:15:31] I'm just trying to think about it. I'm
[1:15:32] not advocating for it. But if you did a
[1:15:35] flat cola, if we want cola to be part of
[1:15:38] the factor,
[1:15:41] then fairness for cola is that part the
[1:15:44] dollar
[1:15:47] that should be something that's tied to
[1:15:53] you're talking about changing scale that
[1:15:55] could be taken out of that
[1:15:59] and then you you somewhat avoid this.
[1:16:02] We're talking about you don't have such
[1:16:03] big
[1:16:05] on the upper end
[1:16:08] because you're paying much more than the
[1:16:10] cost of living
[1:16:12] for the higher end.
[1:16:18] » What is there? How many people are maxed
[1:16:20] out for?
[1:16:22] » I'd have to do a recount a handful.
[1:16:25] » I say I say well as of 26 I don't think
[1:16:27] we had anybody. 27 is where we would
[1:16:30] potentially start to hit people top.
[1:16:33] 27
[1:16:36] minimum 2.7
[1:16:38] » Correct
[1:16:39] » I thought we just reset it last year
[1:16:42] that we started at steps
[1:16:45] » Yeah well that that's what I'm saying so
[1:16:46] but I mean we um similar to so it was
[1:16:50] utilities that basically is going to be
[1:16:52] jumping faster under their study they
[1:16:54] were getting two steps basically like
[1:16:57] twice a year um whereas every like
[1:17:00] they're the ones that are be topping out
[1:17:01] so the top outs aren't happening
[1:17:03] necessarily. Yes, it's happening in the
[1:17:06] city department, but not in those
[1:17:08] numbers that we're discussing now, the
[1:17:09] general fund,
[1:17:10] » Because yes, like it it did kind of
[1:17:12] reset
[1:17:14] » Because we probably had a third of
[1:17:16] employees that were at the top of their
[1:17:18] wage scale and so yes, all of those
[1:17:20] employees are now not at the top.
[1:17:34] So, I would say I know as we've
[1:17:35] certainly we we've talked into it and I
[1:17:38] know we did just do a comp study and so
[1:17:39] I'm certainly not saying we need to do
[1:17:41] another one. Um,
[1:17:44] I think there is certainly some merit to
[1:17:46] exploring
[1:17:49] different pay structures per se. And I I
[1:17:53] know the county does a little bit
[1:17:54] different. I know I've mentioned to you
[1:17:56] and our staff like other states do it
[1:17:58] differently. Th this is kind of the
[1:18:00] system that the state of Minnesota for
[1:18:02] better for worse has has adapted amongst
[1:18:04] municipalities. Um
[1:18:07] you go into other states, it's a
[1:18:09] completely different pay structure and
[1:18:10] how things work in those in those
[1:18:12] states. So there are certainly a variety
[1:18:15] of ways
[1:18:17] that that this happens.
[1:18:19] But I think to Sean's point, you do a
[1:18:21] comp study and you're talking to other
[1:18:25] municipalities and you're
[1:18:27] feed the money yourself.
[1:18:30] It's not a market based deal.
[1:18:34] Well, you're going to lose people.
[1:18:37] Every business deals with employees.
[1:18:40] That's should never be an issue.
[1:18:45] Someone may want to go to prior lake and
[1:18:47] it has nothing to do with their but you
[1:18:50] know you've always brought that up is
[1:18:51] that every comm study is they go out to
[1:18:54] other cities and if they just did a comp
[1:18:57] study oh we're behind their comp study
[1:19:00] and it just becomes a snowball effect
[1:19:04] each other is feeding other to
[1:19:09] get these as they say competitive wages
[1:19:12] I don't know how many you know they say
[1:19:14] they market. I don't know how what they
[1:19:17] did for a market the last comp study
[1:19:21] but did they go to businesses in Craig
[1:19:23] and say what do you pay for the count or
[1:19:26] what do you pay for a clerk or what do
[1:19:29] you pay for your maintenance guy I don't
[1:19:32] know if they did that per se I think
[1:19:34] they just may have looked at information
[1:19:37] generally you know I mean this is what
[1:19:40] you know Robert Ha has out
[1:19:44] for people in this industry and this and
[1:19:47] this. You know, I don't think they did.
[1:19:50] To me, when I say, "Hey, I like that
[1:19:52] market deal." I'd rather have them go
[1:19:55] talk to some businesses in town besides
[1:19:59] other cities because that's who you're
[1:20:01] competing.
[1:20:04] But that's the next step.
[1:20:14] » [clears throat]
[1:20:15] » Well, I
[1:20:18] I don't want to see anybody,
[1:20:21] you know, I like our I I like our
[1:20:24] employees ones that we have. I know they
[1:20:26] care about this town a lot, but there's
[1:20:29] also built in are those
[1:20:32] untangles like with alignment. It's
[1:20:36] pretty nice getting up and driving five
[1:20:39] minutes to work where XL might be paying
[1:20:42] two bucks more an hour. If you want to
[1:20:44] go do it, go that. Okay. But I don't
[1:20:47] know why we always have to match that
[1:20:48] because it's they might have to go to
[1:20:50] Richfield in a snowstorm and have to
[1:20:53] leave an hour. So, I don't know what an
[1:20:55] extra hour and a half of sleep is worth
[1:20:56] to you. You know, maybe they want the
[1:20:58] it's all about the bottom line and the
[1:21:00] dollar, but I much rather sleep in and
[1:21:02] then drive five minutes to work, you
[1:21:04] know, and then
[1:21:06] Like, you know, when we compare those
[1:21:08] guys to XL,
[1:21:10] um there's a ice storm in Arkansas,
[1:21:14] give your wife and kids a kiss and
[1:21:17] you're going down there for three weeks
[1:21:18] to, you know, they send you down. I
[1:21:20] don't care if it's the state baseball
[1:21:22] tournament or I don't care if it's
[1:21:23] you're coaching my seventh grade kids
[1:21:25] basketball, [clears throat]
[1:21:26] you're required to be down in Arkansas
[1:21:28] for the next three weeks, we need you
[1:21:30] down there. That doesn't happen with us.
[1:21:32] » What's that worth? You know, I There's a
[1:21:35] lot of those intangibles that are that
[1:21:38] are also worth something. I want to be
[1:21:39] fair and whatnot, but I also have to
[1:21:41] control costs, too. And as we've seen
[1:21:45] wages and benefits eats up the majority
[1:21:48] of everything that we do.
[1:21:49] » Would you say that number is 67%. Or is
[1:21:52] that just
[1:21:59] » We're talking a big percentage of our
[1:22:01] total.
[1:22:02] » I know personal
[1:22:05] And Bruce is playing that 6%.
[1:22:08] » We're not making widgets anymore.
[1:22:13] » But I think too when you provide a
[1:22:16] service like that's a very natural thing
[1:22:18] is it is the people providing the
[1:22:20] service that are what is [clears throat]
[1:22:22] and I mean school districts even more so
[1:22:24] but like the vast majority of their
[1:22:26] budgets. And so I'm not saying that we
[1:22:29] that's the one I agree that wages and
[1:22:31] benefits are the one we have the most
[1:22:33] control over, but it's also the one that
[1:22:35] naturally in a service type industry
[1:22:38] such as government is going to dominate
[1:22:42] um your budgets just very naturally.
[1:22:45] » Well, look what's going on in
[1:22:46] Minneapolis. I mean, they're gonna let a
[1:22:48] hundred people go,
[1:22:49] » You know.
[1:22:50] » Oh, no. And that's what I'm
[1:22:51] » I don't want to be in that situation,
[1:22:53] you know, because we can't
[1:22:54] » I would agree. I I'm just saying that
[1:22:57] unlike a manufacturing industry where
[1:22:59] you got supplies all over the place like
[1:23:01] we are going to carry a slightly higher
[1:23:03] wage and like I said probably not as
[1:23:04] high as the school district. I mean the
[1:23:06] school district 80% something like that
[1:23:08] but
[1:23:09] » 70% wages and benefits
[1:23:13] » 70
[1:23:18] but didn't you say
[1:23:20] percentage is what
[1:23:24] 3 to
[1:23:28] wasn't a big number. $16,000
[1:23:31] annually. It wasn't
[1:23:34] » Wasn't a 1% on our levy, which is what
[1:23:38] 63,000
[1:23:39] » Right at 60.
[1:23:43] » Yeah, it isn't a big number, but we
[1:23:46] still need to address it.
[1:23:47] » No, no, I agree. I mean, yeah,
[1:23:50] you know, I mean, this is the this is my
[1:23:53] personal take
[1:23:55] for September. I would have a problem
[1:23:57] publishing the 7.56.
[1:24:01] My goal
[1:24:03] probably six
[1:24:06] between five and six. How do you get
[1:24:08] there? We have to look at everything.
[1:24:11] That That's the way I look at it.
[1:24:18] without using any reserves or besides
[1:24:21] what we talked about.
[1:24:24] It was counties talking about 2.8% but
[1:24:28] cap a lot of the reserves. I think next
[1:24:30] year they might be in trouble when
[1:24:33] feds push expenses down to the state and
[1:24:35] the state pushes expenses. I mean that
[1:24:37] that's talking to Scott County.
[1:24:39] » Oh no. I mean the problem Yeah. The
[1:24:41] problem with using reserves to try to
[1:24:43] balance out a budget year over year is
[1:24:45] eventually you run out of reserves.
[1:24:46] » Well, right.
[1:24:47] » And the piper comes calling.
[1:24:48] » Yeah. And I think that's what the sewer
[1:24:50] count is doing. So they can say, "Hey,
[1:24:53] we only did that 2.8%."
[1:24:56] But they have to be using some reserve.
[1:24:58] They have the same picture we have. They
[1:25:01] have a lot of labor staff in in there.
[1:25:05] They're no different. Obviously, they're
[1:25:06] just the next level up.
[1:25:10] They got to be doing something. Either
[1:25:12] they're that or they're not buying any
[1:25:14] new equipment, which I don't know. I
[1:25:16] don't see that.
[1:25:17] » The 1% change, sir. Josh, is 23,000.
[1:25:21] That's all salary and benefits.
[1:25:23] » Oh, and benefits.
[1:25:24] » Well, the Pra, FICA, paid family medical
[1:25:27] leave, anything that's based on a
[1:25:28] percentages.
[1:25:29] » Oh, okay.
[1:25:31] » Not medical.
[1:25:32] » Well, medical, correct? Medical wouldn't
[1:25:34] change. So, it's just salary and
[1:25:36] associated.
[1:25:38] But but to your point, even equipment
[1:25:39] though is kind of
[1:25:42] obviously you can you can patch it and
[1:25:44] make that truck one more year, but
[1:25:45] eventually that truck has to be
[1:25:46] » No, no. I I I doubt I think they're
[1:25:50] being foolish, but I hate to say it.
[1:25:52] It's an election year. A lot of those
[1:25:53] guys are running for their county seat
[1:25:57] again, you know, so they're going to get
[1:26:00] it out there that, you know, our
[1:26:01] preliminary first budget is 2.8%. So
[1:26:06] you talk to Leslie at spec
[1:26:10] administrator and she's like no way no
[1:26:14] way they're not using reserves.
[1:26:21] Well,
[1:26:21] » That's that that's the way I would
[1:26:23] direct us for now is is
[1:26:25] » I'll say
[1:26:26] » Unless we, you know, let's do the 7.56%
[1:26:29] because that's what we present in in
[1:26:32] September
[1:26:33] » Because that is certainly a not to
[1:26:35] exceed that basically sets the absolute
[1:26:38] cap for us.
[1:26:38] » And we've always been very conservative
[1:26:41] in our September thing,
[1:26:44] » But we've always reduced it.
[1:26:49] I mean I think you know if someone
[1:26:52] understands the dynamics that you know
[1:26:55] that police station you know if we would
[1:26:57] have kept that it should have been 13%.
[1:26:59] » A police station by itself would be
[1:27:03] » 10%
[1:27:04] » You were like at 11% I guess. Yeah.
[1:27:06] [clears throat]
[1:27:07] » You know so
[1:27:09] » Yeah but we did use reserves. So whether
[1:27:12] whether sewer county or Scott County
[1:27:14] » No we didn't use reserves. We used that
[1:27:17] grant money. Well, no. I mean, no. To
[1:27:19] Sean's point, we did use some cash, but
[1:27:22] that took to buy down the debt. But but
[1:27:24] but in that but in that case, I I would
[1:27:26] argue that that is using reserves to buy
[1:27:30] down a one-time purchase versus I think
[1:27:33] to Chuck's point, is is Lassour
[1:27:35] attempting to use reserves on an
[1:27:37] operating expense that can be back next
[1:27:39] year
[1:27:40] » And you're going to have to then find a
[1:27:41] way to fund.
[1:27:41] » Yeah. Then they're going to have to
[1:27:44] » Well the piper,
[1:27:46] » Right? Well, let's look at, you know,
[1:27:48] the EDA sitting at 1.2. Let's use 02
[1:27:53] 200,000. We could lower 3% right there.
[1:27:57] » But but hold the 75 this year. But but I
[1:28:01] think to that point then that just
[1:28:02] creates an opport the situation where
[1:28:04] depending on what you're using that
[1:28:05] money for are you then just now you're
[1:28:08] $200 200 grand in the whole next year
[1:28:11] versus
[1:28:13] this year where you before you use that
[1:28:16] and because that a lot of those expenses
[1:28:18] would just come back again next year and
[1:28:20] now you're having to find another way to
[1:28:21] fund them.
[1:28:23] So
[1:28:25] I don't I don't know. I don't think most
[1:28:26] people sitting around the dinner table
[1:28:29] are doing it like that.
[1:28:33] This is
[1:28:35] got this money and we need this.
[1:28:40] We decide if we want it that bad.
[1:28:45] » But
[1:28:45] » Well, it's fair. But I think
[1:28:48] » There I don't you know they have a big
[1:28:50] longterm plan for it. I know they have
[1:28:51] some things that I've heard of. Um, but
[1:28:55] as I told one of the members months ago
[1:28:59] that I was at, I said, "Yeah, you want
[1:29:01] to bring businesses to town, not putting
[1:29:04] up a new awning for them." I said,
[1:29:05] "Lower their taxes, then market that."
[1:29:09] I mean, put it up in a comparison.
[1:29:11] Anybody that's thinking about moving in
[1:29:13] the south metro, show them our tax levy
[1:29:16] where it's been for 10 years that it's
[1:29:19] and then show the other ones so they can
[1:29:21] plan and it's they're getting good value
[1:29:24] for
[1:29:25] » I mean I I I think that's certainly
[1:29:27] something we could do. But I'll just be
[1:29:28] straight up honest with what we're
[1:29:29] talking about right now. Like we are
[1:29:31] currently in a battle with a surrounding
[1:29:32] community who has a double the tax rate
[1:29:34] of us. The business is still considering
[1:29:36] moving over to them. Like
[1:29:39] so
[1:29:41] I I yeah I mean I I taxes certainly
[1:29:43] matter and I think that's something we
[1:29:44] can be proud of because we have a lower
[1:29:46] tax rate than a lot of people until you
[1:29:47] get up into the larger much much larger
[1:29:50] communities who just have more
[1:29:51] industrial than us and so they're able
[1:29:52] to pull their tax rate down. Um but
[1:29:57] it's not everything but it's certainly
[1:29:59] something I agree like
[1:30:02] every single increase here affects my my
[1:30:04] tax rate just as much as everyone else
[1:30:05] is at this table. So, um,
[1:30:09] » Yeah, I I guess I
[1:30:10] » The city ministry investigated.
[1:30:13] » Oh, we don't need that rumor floating.
[1:30:17] » I I I get enough people that think at
[1:30:19] times that the uh streets department
[1:30:21] plows my driveway for me and uh that I I
[1:30:24] I don't have to mow my grass, that sort
[1:30:26] of thing. But uh
[1:30:28] » You have to mow your grass.
[1:30:30] » Well, it's been a dry year. You don't
[1:30:31] have to mow it as much.
[1:30:33] » [clears throat]
[1:30:33] » When do we have to publish that?
[1:30:35] » Mid start end of September.
[1:30:36] » So this is usually usually historically
[1:30:39] we'd always done at the second meeting
[1:30:41] in September. Last year we said, "Hey,
[1:30:43] let's take it at the first meeting in
[1:30:44] September. That way if we decide
[1:30:46] something's got to change, like we still
[1:30:48] got a meeting uh without um having to
[1:30:52] schedule a special." I guess to Chuck's
[1:30:54] point, my recommendation certainly would
[1:30:56] be coming in at this because as as you
[1:30:58] said, like this is just setting our max
[1:31:00] is basically all it's doing. This isn't
[1:31:02] um deciding this is where the levy's at.
[1:31:04] This is basically setting a max and
[1:31:06] should something happen. I know that's
[1:31:08] what we've talked in the past like
[1:31:10] they'll have four months left in the
[1:31:12] year. If something happens,
[1:31:15] we have a max, but that's that's not
[1:31:17] what we're shooting for at this point.
[1:31:20] » Well, are we going to have another
[1:31:21] budget meeting anyways at the end of
[1:31:23] September? I'd like to see you guys work
[1:31:26] on how you can want to get down to that
[1:31:28] 6% and not publish it yet since we don't
[1:31:31] have to go through the entire month. Let
[1:31:34] you guys have four weeks working on it
[1:31:36] and then have another Monday night
[1:31:38] doesn't have to be a long one budget
[1:31:40] meeting and say, "Hey, this is where we
[1:31:41] found it. We've got down to chuck six."
[1:31:44] Then if we're okay with that and we
[1:31:47] don't want to use EDA money or whatever
[1:31:49] else, then we could vote. We could we
[1:31:51] could vote at a budget meeting. I mean
[1:31:53] it is a published meeting that we're
[1:31:54] we're all
[1:31:55] » We could technically yes it's not
[1:31:56] something we've historically done and so
[1:31:58] I trying to keep things transparent as
[1:32:01] council's always voted during regular
[1:32:03] meetings
[1:32:03] » Right and it's not that we're trying to
[1:32:06] this we're just publishing where we're
[1:32:08] not to exceed let's just let's let's see
[1:32:11] what you come up with
[1:32:11] » But I just yeah but I just don't want to
[1:32:15] get to a point at 6% something was
[1:32:19] missed or
[1:32:20] » I was like like that's
[1:32:23] might
[1:32:23] » And I know even in the past when we've
[1:32:24] gone into it we've gone okay we think
[1:32:26] we're at 6% but how about we come in at
[1:32:28] seven or seven and a half the idea being
[1:32:30] what happens if we have an unexpected
[1:32:32] truck blow up on us and so now like that
[1:32:35] becomes something that needs to get
[1:32:36] replaced that we weren't because we
[1:32:38] tightened the screw so tight that now we
[1:32:40] don't have money in the budget to
[1:32:41] replace that truck or
[1:32:43] » Budget
[1:32:44] » We could go to the EDA fund and take,000
[1:32:46] [clears throat]
[1:32:47] » There's a difference between money in
[1:32:49] the budget and going to a fund of
[1:32:50] existing cash Like those are two very
[1:32:52] different things.
[1:32:53] » Or we take out the $75,000 from the EDA
[1:32:56] this year because they are sitting on
[1:32:58] 1.2 million.
[1:32:59] » I mean there's there's a lot of
[1:33:00] different ways around it, you know. I
[1:33:01] mean
[1:33:01] » So so I will say taking out the 75 is
[1:33:04] not going to save you as much as you
[1:33:05] think only because portion of the EDA is
[1:33:07] » They would buy a new truck if it blew
[1:33:08] up,
[1:33:09] » But it's paying for a third of my
[1:33:10] salary. So are we also I'll just say it.
[1:33:12] Are we taking away just a third of my
[1:33:13] salary or is that then getting funded by
[1:33:15] the general fund? So a lot of those EDA
[1:33:18] funds would then just move back into the
[1:33:20] general fund.
[1:33:20] » Well, I don't you know, the accounting
[1:33:22] shift that you want to do and how you
[1:33:23] want to portray it. I don't, you know, I
[1:33:26] don't that doesn't bother me as much as
[1:33:28] » I mean I I I guess I'll be honest.
[1:33:30] » We got you know,
[1:33:31] » I'll be honest. There is 6,26,27,6424
[1:33:39] that we could potentially play with. Um,
[1:33:42] but some of that comes down to to
[1:33:43] services. And I will say this council
[1:33:46] did a great job keeping keeping stuff
[1:33:48] low and we certainly reduced the levy. I
[1:33:50] think it was up to almost 70% at one
[1:33:53] point tax rate. But there does come a
[1:33:56] point too when you've continued to keep
[1:33:59] things really low and inflation has gone
[1:34:01] the other direction that it becomes
[1:34:02] harder and harder to cut. And I know
[1:34:04] when we when we talk internally it
[1:34:06] becomes a well we can get rid of that
[1:34:08] but like are we going to have to let the
[1:34:10] grass grow a little longer? Let the
[1:34:12] streets get a little less plowed that
[1:34:13] sort of thing. And at some point too,
[1:34:16] you we have trimmed up supplies enough
[1:34:18] to where we are running a very tight
[1:34:20] ship across most departments. To your
[1:34:22] point, Sean, we do start having to get
[1:34:24] into labor costs and it becomes okay. If
[1:34:27] we're going to find this money, we have
[1:34:28] to find in labor. And now I'm saying all
[1:34:30] of this not to say that we couldn't find
[1:34:33] some if the council came and said, you
[1:34:35] know what, this is passing at 6%. I need
[1:34:37] you guys to make this happen. We would
[1:34:39] make it happen. I can't promise what
[1:34:41] kind of juice comes out the other end on
[1:34:42] it, but we could certainly make it
[1:34:44] happen.
[1:34:45] » Well, I guess my my point would be I
[1:34:47] don't do we we don't necessarily have to
[1:34:49] do it tonight. We don't have to publish
[1:34:51] it tonight. So maybe at the next Tuesday
[1:34:54] you've come already and you said, "Hey,
[1:34:56] I was able to skim another 46 off by
[1:34:59] this." I still think I should publish
[1:35:03] what
[1:35:03] » But but to Chuck's point, I'd rather
[1:35:05] publish a little high and then take it
[1:35:07] off then try to take it off and publish
[1:35:09] that lower number and then something
[1:35:11] comes up.
[1:35:12] » No, second.
[1:35:14] I mean, we can we don't have to make a
[1:35:16] decision, but we're got to make a
[1:35:18] decision September either the first
[1:35:20] meeting or the second meeting.
[1:35:22] » So, we have to publish that to the
[1:35:24] Minnesota Department of Revenue,
[1:35:25] » Right?
[1:35:25] » Um
[1:35:27] and you know, I just think
[1:35:30] And that's not
[1:35:31] » Just just what Josh's memo and 7.56
[1:35:34] [snorts]
[1:35:36] that's something that
[1:35:39] has a backbone to it. everyone has
[1:35:42] looked at their budget and said, "Hey,
[1:35:43] this is what we need next year, you
[1:35:46] know, and so you can say, okay, we we
[1:35:48] got this by using some of that grant
[1:35:51] money and, you know, whatever other
[1:35:53] things, which you know, to me is
[1:35:58] we're very lucky that we got that
[1:35:59] million dollar."
[1:36:00] » Yeah.
[1:36:01] » You know, so um
[1:36:05] » But again, I don't want to go and say in
[1:36:08] September we're going to have 6%. I
[1:36:10] think that's that's tightening too much.
[1:36:13] I mean, that's that's just my goal. I
[1:36:15] don't know what your guys go to what my
[1:36:18] goal was.
[1:36:18] » Right. Right.
[1:36:20] » Well, I mean, do we have the our
[1:36:21] insurance costs in yet or?
[1:36:23] » Uh,
[1:36:24] » It's going to be 19% for health
[1:36:26] insurance.
[1:36:27] » It was what?
[1:36:28] » It will be 19% for health insurance.
[1:36:32] » I I would think that probably should be
[1:36:34] 7.56 would be smarter idea because we
[1:36:37] can go less, just never go over, right?
[1:36:40] Well, that's
[1:36:40] » Yeah. All you're doing is basically
[1:36:42] publishing a cap for yourself.
[1:36:44] » Well, we could beat this in the head a
[1:36:46] little longer, but I would say I would
[1:36:47] suggest that we adjourn.
[1:36:50] » I just want to make a couple of
[1:36:51] comments.
[1:36:52] » Just a couple. Godamn it.
[1:36:55] » Well, just revisiting
[1:36:57] the cash payments and the cash that we
[1:36:59] use for the debt service.
[1:37:06] I I think there's
[1:37:09] If we look at towards the end of this
[1:37:11] year, we see that this year we're
[1:37:13] running an excess.
[1:37:16] I'm would advocate that that would be
[1:37:18] used to help pay for
[1:37:21] project [clears throat] or at least
[1:37:22] understand
[1:37:23] get a good number are we going
[1:37:27] and if there is try to use that to
[1:37:29] reduce
[1:37:31] station.
[1:37:34] When we did the start thinking about the
[1:37:36] facility needs way before Ivan was
[1:37:39] council member
[1:37:42] this is a long this is a multi- faceted
[1:37:47] project and so we bought a parks
[1:37:49] building that we're buying a city hall
[1:37:51] both in cash
[1:37:54] um we're not financing it those are the
[1:37:56] long-term assets and so we're paying
[1:37:58] short-term cash and that's great but in
[1:38:02] the sense if there's going to a benefit
[1:38:03] to the taxpayer. It should be done
[1:38:05] sooner than later if you can do it
[1:38:09] because
[1:38:11] this all came together overall. I stand
[1:38:14] by the fact that it's been a great
[1:38:16] success, a great accomplishment and it
[1:38:19] added a lot. I know a lot of people
[1:38:21] might not agree with that, but
[1:38:23] financially
[1:38:26] I think there's reason to to think about
[1:38:30] there's extra cash
[1:38:32] to apply it to debt service to reduce
[1:38:34] that for next year. Got the benefit as
[1:38:37] we went through this projection about
[1:38:39] the additional bond,000
[1:38:41] available.
[1:38:45] Oh,
[1:38:47] the projection I think is very good and
[1:38:50] very actually very happy with how the
[1:38:52] numbers are looking there. But there's
[1:38:56] extra availability. We don't have the
[1:38:59] ambulance fun anymore.
[1:39:02] That's what I'd advocate for. And then
[1:39:04] secondly about the EDA
[1:39:07] I I think there's arguments that can be
[1:39:10] made about considering things with the
[1:39:17] I would certainly consider the fact of
[1:39:21] using levy there if no fun budget after
[1:39:25] the sidewalk thing is done
[1:39:28] that we have still that issue like we're
[1:39:31] going to have to fun with our own cash
[1:39:33] but we
[1:39:36] But we certainly have some life into it
[1:39:39] if we're not going to be developers
[1:39:43] today at this point in time. I don't
[1:39:45] necessarily a big advocate of us buying
[1:39:47] bunch of land.
[1:39:50] I know that's not everyone doesn't feel
[1:39:52] the same way about that, but return on
[1:39:54] investment. I don't
[1:39:59] since we're not looking for job. I
[1:40:01] certainly would be open to that review
[1:40:04] and discussion and see if there's other
[1:40:06] things.
[1:40:08] I made the levy originally to the city
[1:40:11] council to start a levy for the
[1:40:16] regular staffing
[1:40:18] and I wouldn't be considering anything
[1:40:20] like that cut down anybody's
[1:40:25] we did that a few years back
[1:40:28] signing the administrator to that that
[1:40:30] was a percentage of
[1:40:34] that can change and that will change
[1:40:36] when the work involved is Obviously
[1:40:40] in the last there's a lot of work
[1:40:41] involved in selling
[1:40:49] longwinded
[1:40:56] are we all kind of all in agreement that
[1:41:00] you know as of tonight we kind of
[1:41:03] have a position and we'll we'll review
[1:41:05] it again and see what
[1:41:08] I guess when would you guys like like to
[1:41:10] come back then?
[1:41:12] » Well, we like to do it after
[1:41:20] like we used to do the old.
[1:41:26] » So, so then I guess I would say you guys
[1:41:27] do not want bring this for preliminary
[1:41:32] approval then at the first meeting. Is
[1:41:36] that what I'm hearing then?
[1:41:37] » Yeah.
[1:41:39] The not to exceed the preliminary not to
[1:41:41] exceed
[1:41:43] » Or I guess the max levy cap, however we
[1:41:46] want to word it.
[1:41:47] » First meeting.
[1:41:50] » So that yeah, that's the way we've kind
[1:41:51] of done it the last couple years. That
[1:41:52] first meeting in September, we've said,
[1:41:54] "Okay, this is where we're setting it."
[1:41:55] And then usually it's that first meeting
[1:41:57] in October is where we then are right
[1:41:59] back at the budget to have another
[1:42:00] budget meeting.
[1:42:01] » I would be okay with that. Those give
[1:42:02] you a couple extra months.
[1:42:06] Well, that's next Tuesday, week from
[1:42:08] tomorrow.
[1:42:09] » But I think I think what I'm hearing,
[1:42:12] we're kind of all in agreement that the
[1:42:14] 7.56 is not a bad place not to exceed
[1:42:18] because we can validate that through
[1:42:22] Josh's budget,
[1:42:24] » Right? But doesn't allow any flexibility
[1:42:27] if you're off.
[1:42:29] » Well, we should be able to come in a lot
[1:42:30] smaller.
[1:42:31] » What do you want to go higher?
[1:42:33] I think we've always gone higher
[1:42:36] » Traditionally. Yes.
[1:42:37] » I mean, well, that's fine if you want to
[1:42:39] go.
[1:42:39] » I mean,
[1:42:40] » I mean, that number is except it goes
[1:42:42] up.
[1:42:43] » Personally, as we continue to get
[1:42:45] insurance numbers in the I actually
[1:42:47] didn't even get a chance to tell Josh
[1:42:49] because it [clears throat] came in late
[1:42:50] on Thursday, um, like after hours. I
[1:42:54] would appreciate some flexibility as we
[1:42:56] get insurance numbers. Not like it's
[1:42:58] going to change it $20,000 per se, but
[1:43:02] just to like fine tune some of that in
[1:43:04] case some of our renewals that we have
[1:43:06] out there are going to be different. I
[1:43:08] mean, health insurance is the biggest
[1:43:09] one, but
[1:43:10] » So, you would be more comfortable if it
[1:43:11] was a higher number than 7.56.
[1:43:14] » Yeah. And not
[1:43:16] percents higher, but like fractions of
[1:43:19] percents higher. It would be comforting
[1:43:20] while we all go back and review things
[1:43:23] while people are looking for savings
[1:43:25] just to make sure everything is
[1:43:28] » Where we want it to be.
[1:43:29] » If we do go eight, does that mean it's
[1:43:31] going to be on how the bill
[1:43:32] » Tax statement
[1:43:33] » On the
[1:43:34] » Correct. Well, whatever number this is
[1:43:35] is the one that appears on the
[1:43:36] preliminary statement,
[1:43:38] » Which is the one that we got in trouble
[1:43:39] in the guy coming out the tank.
[1:43:42] » So, I will say usually, and I mean I
[1:43:46] every year, you never know, um,
[1:43:48] historically most comments that people
[1:43:50] seem to receive in the preliminary are
[1:43:51] people upset with their tax values. And
[1:43:54] so, just getting the word out that the
[1:43:56] tax value meeting usually happens in
[1:43:57] March or April, not
[1:44:00] » Coming up.
[1:44:02] I would guess like personally when most
[1:44:04] people have come to me and said, "Hey,
[1:44:05] why does mine have an 8% increase here
[1:44:07] or whatnot?" Um, well, and that's the
[1:44:10] thing too is that they don't necessarily
[1:44:12] even see in this case, they wouldn't
[1:44:14] necessarily see 7.56 on their tax bill.
[1:44:18] If they're the average person, they
[1:44:20] would see a 5.62%
[1:44:22] increase. Um, if
[1:44:24] » That's all they
[1:44:26] » And and so um yeah, the number they're
[1:44:28] seeing isn't even the number we're
[1:44:29] talking about tonight. the number
[1:44:30] they're going to see is the number of
[1:44:31] how it affects them personally, which I
[1:44:34] think is what most people generally end
[1:44:35] up caring about. But so there will be
[1:44:38] some that would come in because it's
[1:44:39] higher and some that come in and be
[1:44:41] like, "Hey, my taxes are going down.
[1:44:42] Thank you."
[1:44:44] » Well, then um wait a minute, does that
[1:44:46] happen?
[1:44:48] » Uh yeah, if you go back to that year,
[1:44:50] » The thank you part.
[1:44:51] » If you go back to was it 2024, the
[1:44:54] average impact was negative.
[1:44:56] Um I actually did have people saying,
[1:44:58] "Hey, our taxes never go down. This is
[1:45:00] awesome. So it it has happened.
[1:45:03] » Can we finish what we're talking about,
[1:45:04] Rob? And then you feel more comfortable
[1:45:06] at 8%. And does anybody have a problem
[1:45:08] with that?
[1:45:09] » Well, we don't have to make that
[1:45:10] decision today.
[1:45:11] » Okay.
[1:45:12] » Well, I mean, well,
[1:45:12] » If we're taking it on the
[1:45:14] » Well, like yeah, if we're bringing it
[1:45:15] back for set our
[1:45:16] » We want to talk about setting that
[1:45:21] levy amount at the September 8th
[1:45:23] meeting.
[1:45:25] I would prefer later but we don't have
[1:45:28] » So
[1:45:30] » And I would like to see maybe insurance
[1:45:32] » 22nd
[1:45:34] 21st
[1:45:35] » 21st
[1:45:36] » 21st maybe insurance rates we're get
[1:45:40] some more numbers or
[1:45:41] » Well that's fine we can do it the 21st
[1:45:43] but that it has to be done by
[1:45:46] » Which means then we have to have a
[1:45:47] budget meeting in between now and then
[1:45:50] the 21st if there's discussions to have
[1:45:54] Right.
[1:45:54] » No, because we're just set in the
[1:45:56] preliminary
[1:45:57] » Not to exceed.
[1:45:57] » Well, that's what I mean. If we're
[1:45:58] setting the preliminary, we could do it
[1:45:59] on the 8th, too.
[1:46:02] » Because Yeah. If we're not if we're not
[1:46:03] going to have another budget discussion,
[1:46:05] per se, but we could set it whenever the
[1:46:07] next meeting is. Um,
[1:46:10] I guess if you look at the schedule, I
[1:46:12] Well, I think this meeting was kind of
[1:46:14] unplanned. It got pushed both forward
[1:46:16] and back at the same time. Um, the next
[1:46:18] planned meeting, I guess, would be the
[1:46:20] first meeting in October.
[1:46:21] » Well, it doesn't have to be until the
[1:46:22] 30th. I don't I don't understand why we
[1:46:24] can't give you guys a month to take a
[1:46:26] look at it and
[1:46:28] » But even if they come back with a 6%
[1:46:32] I don't want to buy our hands and do
[1:46:35] » No but then we could at least come back
[1:46:37] and say okay it's 7%
[1:46:39] » But then we need a budget meeting I
[1:46:40] would assume to do that and not just
[1:46:42] surprise you guys example on like
[1:46:44] September 21st and say hey we put in
[1:46:48] seven or we put in six and a half so we
[1:46:50] would just have to have a budget meeting
[1:46:52] in the next
[1:46:53] I would just do a budget meeting at the
[1:46:54] end of the month. You know, that gives
[1:46:56] you guys more time. Maybe some insurance
[1:46:58] numbers come in,
[1:46:59] » But we'd still need to set the
[1:47:00] preliminary
[1:47:01] » By the end of September. Right. Yeah.
[1:47:03] So, I would be prepared to do that on
[1:47:05] that night.
[1:47:05] » But I guess also like we've mentioned
[1:47:06] like his Yeah. Like historically
[1:47:09] » Some wiggle room.
[1:47:09] » Yeah. Historically, we've always done
[1:47:11] that in an open meeting because those
[1:47:13] like those are the meetings that people
[1:47:15] expect us to make decisions. So, as long
[1:47:17] as the council would have to be okay
[1:47:18] with making a decision at a special
[1:47:19] meeting when we don't normally make
[1:47:21] decisions,
[1:47:22] » We're we're making a non-binding
[1:47:23] decision. It's not that important.
[1:47:25] » Or we can have it on the agenda,
[1:47:27] » Right?
[1:47:29] » At a meeting. It doesn't have to be a
[1:47:31] special budget. Be on the agenda that
[1:47:33] we're going to discuss.
[1:47:34] » No, no. I mean, that mean
[1:47:37] it's not like we're doing it out of
[1:47:38] session,
[1:47:39] » Right?
[1:47:39] » No, we wouldn't be doing it out of
[1:47:41] session. It's just happening at hap it
[1:47:43] would happen at a anything that's not a
[1:47:44] regular meeting becomes a special
[1:47:46] meeting and we've just historically
[1:47:47] never made decisions during a special
[1:47:50] meeting. So I just want to make sure the
[1:47:51] council would be okay.
[1:47:52] » We've made decisions.
[1:47:54] » Okay. Not since I've been here not since
[1:47:56] I've been here has anything formally
[1:47:58] » Decisions now.
[1:47:59] » Okay. Nothing's been formally
[1:48:01] » There you go.
[1:48:02] » So I just know that too I mean there's a
[1:48:05] lot of people especially in today's
[1:48:06] world that are transparency. So, I just
[1:48:08] want to make sure that everyone is aware
[1:48:10] that um
[1:48:12] » You college kids.
[1:48:14] [laughter]
[1:48:16] » So, we
[1:48:17] » Is that how the council wants to go at
[1:48:18] this point that we want to schedule a
[1:48:20] special meeting right now to talk about
[1:48:22] this
[1:48:24] » And if you want to do it the second
[1:48:25] meeting then I suggest we do it before
[1:48:27] the 15th meeting
[1:48:29] » Because I I I guess I will just say this
[1:48:31] about
[1:48:32] » Make an action at the meeting.
[1:48:33] » I will say this about the budget in
[1:48:34] front of you. I kind of mentioned that
[1:48:36] there's a potential anywhere from zero
[1:48:38] to $50,000 that I could certainly pull
[1:48:40] out of this. I'll say from our
[1:48:42] department heads perspectives, they have
[1:48:44] they've served to squeeze this thing. Um
[1:48:47] the first budget we looked at when we
[1:48:49] said okay because a lot of times I tell
[1:48:51] them numbers out of the question. I just
[1:48:53] want to know what you guys need. We were
[1:48:55] above 20%. And so we've gotten this
[1:48:57] thing squeezed down quite a bit. At this
[1:49:00] point, I think we may be squeezing on
[1:49:01] needs. And so, I don't know how big of a
[1:49:04] change we're going to get until unless
[1:49:06] you guys come back and say, "No, this
[1:49:07] has to be the number." I think a lot of
[1:49:09] what you're seeing in this budget now is
[1:49:11] what is being recommended as needs for
[1:49:13] various department to operate 27.
[1:49:17] » Well, what we're still hanging out, we
[1:49:19] still have 4% in the cola,
[1:49:21] » Correct?
[1:49:21] » That could be three. Maybe it isn't for
[1:49:24] » But but I don't I don't know if that
[1:49:26] I'll that recommendation for me is not
[1:49:28] going to change in the next month. That
[1:49:29] recommendation may change in October or
[1:49:31] November as we get just more data on the
[1:49:34] year end. So I I I would not recommend
[1:49:37] lowering that until we get closer and
[1:49:38] just have more data to work with. I mean
[1:49:41] we could just lower it right now if
[1:49:42] that's what we're looking to do, but I
[1:49:44] I'm trying to line that up a little bit
[1:49:46] not only with um inflation measures but
[1:49:48] what other communities are doing and
[1:49:50] just trying to keep things competitive.
[1:49:52] So, I just want to make sure that if we
[1:49:54] have another meeting, it's a productive
[1:49:55] meeting and we're not just coming
[1:49:56] together to ultimately approve something
[1:50:00] that is very wholly similar to what
[1:50:02] we're looking at tonight.
[1:50:06] » Build a lot of confidence. I was hoping
[1:50:08] that would be less than that.
[1:50:09] » I mean, if if it would have been less
[1:50:11] than that, I think I I we would have
[1:50:13] brought less than that tonight. So,
[1:50:17] like I said, if if it comes out and you
[1:50:18] guys say, "Nope, it's got to be 6%."
[1:50:21] We will make that happen. Um,
[1:50:23] » But again the six percentage system
[1:50:25] » No, no, I know I know but but that that
[1:50:27] that was that was more of a comment on
[1:50:30] like this is this is the budget at this
[1:50:32] point that's becoming recommended by
[1:50:34] each department of how to operate the
[1:50:37] department to maintain the level of
[1:50:38] service as it exists.
[1:50:41] So, and I'm not saying not to have
[1:50:44] another meeting. I just want to make
[1:50:45] sure the meeting's productive when we
[1:50:46] come back together because I know not
[1:50:48] everyone likes to meet all the time,
[1:50:51] especially on nights that aren't already
[1:50:53] council nights.
[1:50:56] » We certainly can. We can.
[1:50:59] » Can we put on the second meeting then
[1:51:00] middle of the month
[1:51:02] » And have a budget meeting before the
[1:51:03] meeting?
[1:51:03] » Well, or just even put it on the agenda
[1:51:05] for the at the end of the meeting or
[1:51:07] whatever.
[1:51:07] » But then we still need a special meeting
[1:51:10] at like sometime after the approve,
[1:51:12] right? Also, I guess to Sean's point, if
[1:51:14] we if we do, we could make it an
[1:51:17] extended agenda item on the second. So,
[1:51:20] it just kind of gets folded into the
[1:51:21] regular meeting basically, and then at
[1:51:23] the end of that discussion, um, we will
[1:51:26] have resolution options and wherever
[1:51:27] that option falls out is we just approve
[1:51:30] the levy at that point. It just becomes
[1:51:31] a and usually it becomes that we're kind
[1:51:33] of know what we're going into it with.
[1:51:35] And so, this will become kind of
[1:51:37] crafting the resolution during the
[1:51:38] discussion that
[1:51:41] » So, I feel like you've already asked
[1:51:42] this, but I will ask.
[1:51:46] Let's say Josh says this, you know, zero
[1:51:48] to did you say 50,000?
[1:51:50] » Yeah.
[1:51:50] » I I'm at Chuck's 6%.
[1:51:54] Is that what you're going to go with?
[1:51:56] » No, we would give you wiggle room
[1:52:00] » Just in case the numbers came higher.
[1:52:02] That was how I envisioned it. We
[1:52:03] » Yeah, we mean setting
[1:52:06] » The preliminary.
[1:52:07] » No, I think we would come up with a
[1:52:09] number that either we stayed 7.5 or we
[1:52:11] say
[1:52:12] So at 7.56, if you were willing to give
[1:52:15] wiggle room,
[1:52:17] » Is it reasonable to go 8%. And really
[1:52:20] for no other reason but Josh's point of
[1:52:22] like having a purposeful additional
[1:52:26] meeting, like what would that additional
[1:52:27] meeting flush out at that time to make
[1:52:30] somebody waiver off of? Now it's Rick's
[1:52:33] 8%.
[1:52:35] The only thing I can think of would be
[1:52:36] like, yeah, we we won't give $75,000 to
[1:52:40] the EA this year, you know, and so boom,
[1:52:43] you're at 6% right there, you know, I
[1:52:45] mean, or and then we say, okay, well,
[1:52:48] Robin, we'll set it at seven.
[1:52:50] » Okay,
[1:52:50] » And give you that extra in case the
[1:52:52] insurance maybe you'll have the
[1:52:53] insurance numbers then and put that in.
[1:52:56] This is buying us a little bit more time
[1:52:59] instead of setting it. you know, it's
[1:53:01] it's not that big of a deal, but I just
[1:53:03] think it makes more sense to do it. I
[1:53:04] mean, if we have till the 30th, let's
[1:53:07] much time to give you guys as much time
[1:53:09] as as you possibly can, you know,
[1:53:12] » And to be I say this with all respect.
[1:53:15] » Yeah.
[1:53:15] » Unless there's guidance like you
[1:53:16] bringing up EDA or like let's get our
[1:53:18] insurance numbers, which we know it's
[1:53:21] just usually weight on insurance
[1:53:22] carriers. I wouldn't know what to be
[1:53:25] tasked with to be trying to work on to
[1:53:28] bring different numbers unless like you
[1:53:30] mentioned let's look at ED let's look at
[1:53:32] this. So I just wouldn't want to come to
[1:53:34] that meeting and have people be like so
[1:53:38] what new things do we have if there was
[1:53:40] no new things?
[1:53:41] » Well there could be I [snorts] I just
[1:53:43] thought giving you guys more time you
[1:53:45] know why why said it tonight when it
[1:53:47] doesn't have we got 30 more days.
[1:53:51] You're not a type A brain shot. I get
[1:53:53] it. I am
[1:53:56] » Meaning I'm like we
[1:53:58] » You're right to the last minute on
[1:54:00] everything.
[1:54:00] » I say this playfully that I'm like we
[1:54:02] had it on the schedule. That's why. So
[1:54:04] it's just a joke.
[1:54:06] » I appreciate the additional time in my
[1:54:08] typical brain. But thank you.
[1:54:12] » Not
[1:54:14] concerned about what we pick or when we
[1:54:17] do it.
[1:54:18] I prefer 8%.
[1:54:21] I have the daily g
[1:54:24] myself not excited about doing another
[1:54:30] be.
[1:54:32] But I do want to look at the personnel
[1:54:36] cost. I think last meeting sometime
[1:54:38] previous you said you're you thought you
[1:54:41] had history and you were going to get
[1:54:43] the history overall personal cost of the
[1:54:46] last few years. takes that off that type
[1:54:50] of thing. We're going to have a
[1:54:52] discussion doesn't have to be done by
[1:54:54] next end of next month, anything like
[1:54:56] that. But
[1:54:58] I don't know if we have
[1:55:04] I don't know where we stand as a council
[1:55:06] as far as
[1:55:08] salary
[1:55:10] people are
[1:55:13] different, but I think we need to have
[1:55:14] that fleshed out.
[1:55:18] sometime doesn't have to be done in
[1:55:20] September, but certainly in October,
[1:55:23] but things and understand our history of
[1:55:27] what our health insurance costs have
[1:55:29] been over the last few years and all
[1:55:31] that that includes that 6% as we look at
[1:55:36] the next three years in this projection
[1:55:39] and
[1:55:40] we're looking at that differently.
[1:55:47] All right. So, I'm I'm gonna be honest
[1:55:49] as as the person who has been hired by
[1:55:51] you to bring back what you want to see.
[1:55:53] I have one vote for a special meeting
[1:55:56] and I have one vote for stick it at 8%.
[1:55:59] So, just informally
[1:56:01] looking at everyone
[1:56:03] as to what you would like me to do.
[1:56:06] » Keep it at 8%.
[1:56:07] » Oh, that's fine. You guys can make that
[1:56:09] motion. I'll just vote no. And
[1:56:11] » Pass four to one. I should hold back my
[1:56:13] special meeting thing. If we have a
[1:56:15] special meeting that's that we're
[1:56:17] actually talking about personnel issues
[1:56:19] and currents and all that
[1:56:22] » And it's got some meat on the bone that
[1:56:23] we're chew on, but just to argue about
[1:56:26] seven and a half% or 8%. I don't know
[1:56:28] that we need
[1:56:29] » No and I'll be 100% honest to Sean's
[1:56:31] point like it does sound like we are
[1:56:33] basically at a at the point where we're
[1:56:35] going to start pulling that together the
[1:56:37] health insurance information. um we
[1:56:39] don't usually have a ton of time once we
[1:56:41] get that anyway. So even if we sent the
[1:56:43] preliminary at the beginning, we may be
[1:56:45] talking health insurance or whatnot
[1:56:47] anyway. Um at that second meeting,
[1:56:50] » Yeah anyway,
[1:56:51] » Just put an agenda item that we're going
[1:56:53] to approve the preliminary levy. That'll
[1:56:56] be interesting.
[1:56:57] » That's clear.
[1:56:58] » And if we say it's 8% or 756 or 9%,
[1:57:02] that's what we're going to do. We're not
[1:57:03] going to have a budget meeting, but
[1:57:05] we'll have another budget meeting in
[1:57:07] October to finetune
[1:57:10] some of those questions everyone has.
[1:57:12] » Right. And also somewhere in there, we
[1:57:14] have the this financial projection.
[1:57:17] Are we asking it for be changed over
[1:57:21] with it? Are we going to adopt it as is?
[1:57:24] And then we need to do that. And then
[1:57:25] what does that mean if we adopt it?
[1:57:28] » We have to approve it. So,
[1:57:31] » If you have any questions regarding
[1:57:33] that,
[1:57:33] » I see questions, comments, changes,
[1:57:36] maybe a small change of, hey, if we
[1:57:38] tweak this, what does it look like?
[1:57:40] Like, that that's a good question
[1:57:41] because that's one I can certainly pass
[1:57:42] on to Abdo and they can throw it in
[1:57:45] their model and spit it back out at us.
[1:57:47] » There's some big changes as far as
[1:57:49] moving money around. [snorts]
[1:57:57] » Okay. So, as of right now, it sounds
[1:57:59] like you're putting it on the second
[1:58:01] meeting
[1:58:03] » As an agenda
[1:58:04] » As an agenda item. We may have a small
[1:58:06] discussion if we were able to find
[1:58:07] something, but otherwise,
[1:58:09] » We're going to we're going to float this
[1:58:11] range.
[1:58:12] » Um,
[1:58:13] and like I said, I think even by that
[1:58:15] point, we'll have health insurance stuff
[1:58:16] that we want to discuss that at the
[1:58:18] meeting, too. Approve that.
[1:58:20] » We will be bringing um we'll have some
[1:58:23] more organized information. Like I said,
[1:58:25] we just got it at the end of the week.
[1:58:27] But if we had any plan changes, which
[1:58:29] I'm not forecasting that we would, we
[1:58:31] have to have that approved by October
[1:58:32] 12th. I don't know, Sean, I feel like
[1:58:34] that was in the past something that we
[1:58:36] all were like, including yourself, like
[1:58:38] that wasn't a lot of time. And that's
[1:58:40] where we're at again this year.
[1:58:41] » Okay.
[1:58:42] » Getting those might be the nature.
[1:58:44] » Yeah. But just so you guys aren't caught
[1:58:46] off guard in October or at the end of
[1:58:48] September when it's a quick turnaround
[1:58:50] for a couple weeks. Oh, of note, um,
[1:58:54] just as a general housekeeping item,
[1:58:57] if you guys have availability, maybe 20
[1:59:00] minutes, I think that's probably enough
[1:59:02] before the 8th meeting on that Tuesday.
[1:59:06] Um, just as kind of an update with union
[1:59:08] negotiations. Um,
[1:59:11] scheduled it special for 5:40, I guess,
[1:59:14] on that day. Quick update on
[1:59:25] And then since I had the levy levy
[1:59:28] budget calendar up, um we were
[1:59:31] anticipating, again, just reminders for
[1:59:34] everybody that's busy,
[1:59:36] planning on a budget approval at that
[1:59:39] first meeting in December, which would
[1:59:41] be December 7 or December 7th, because
[1:59:46] there was the potential that you would
[1:59:48] look to not have a meeting that week of
[1:59:49] Christmas, December 21st.
[1:59:52] So that' be final levy and budget
[1:59:54] approval on December 7th.
[1:59:57] » But that can that be tax truth and
[2:00:00] taxation.
[2:00:01] » Truth and taxation.
[2:00:02] » Yep. Yeah. Different different
[2:00:03] communities do that differently. Some
[2:00:05] » Some communities approve their budget on
[2:00:07] the night of the truth and taxation if
[2:00:09] there's no changes that they see making.
[2:00:11] Um other communities come back at the
[2:00:13] next meeting and change it.
[2:00:15] » I know this year the second meeting is
[2:00:17] landing about as close to Christmas as
[2:00:18] it can get and so
[2:00:23] um seventh December 7th.
[2:00:26] » Yes,
[2:00:27] » We would look to cancel the 21st meeting
[2:00:29] potentially.
[2:00:30] » Yeah. So I know I know when we've had
[2:00:33] » Just due to the proximity and I'm saying
[2:00:34] we would but I know other times when
[2:00:36] we've had meetings land very close to
[2:00:38] holidays. Was it last year we had
[2:00:40] canceled a meeting that was like a day
[2:00:42] from the like on July 3rd or something
[2:00:44] like that. um just because because it
[2:00:47] interfered with the fourth and so um we
[2:00:50] didn't have any business necessarily
[2:00:51] that we need to transact. So yeah, that
[2:00:53] wasn't a saying that we're going to.
[2:00:54] That is saying that we're the schedule's
[2:00:56] built around the possibility if we say
[2:00:58] there's no business that needs to be
[2:00:59] transacted and we need to have this
[2:01:01] meeting.
[2:01:02] » I u on the 7th I might have might be a
[2:01:05] meeting that I was going to miss because
[2:01:07] I I have [clears throat] a wedding out
[2:01:09] of state um but we don't get back in
[2:01:13] until 5:49.
[2:01:14] » Tell her if she wants to move in state
[2:01:16] [clears throat]
[2:01:20] hall. It's a church.
[2:01:23] All right. Any other questions? We all
[2:01:26] have an understanding what's going on.
[2:01:30] » Absolutely not. But we'll make it.
[2:01:32] » Oh, yeah. 5:40. Does that work for you
[2:01:34] guys?
[2:01:34] » Or no, the 8th.
[2:01:36] » The 8th. Yes.
[2:01:37] » Yes.
[2:01:38] » Okay. You all understand?
[2:01:40] » Yes.
[2:01:41] » I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
[2:01:43] » Second.
[2:01:43] » Second by Sean. All in favor say I. I.
[2:01:47] » Any opposition? Thank you, everyone.
[2:01:53] I'm gonna go over to Tim's house and
[2:01:54] breathe. [laughter]