[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]

Special City Council Meeting - 8/31/26

Transcript