[0:00] All right.

[0:01] We'll do the official start.

[0:04] This is November 3rd,

[0:06] city Council workshop, and we have a couple items.

[0:09] First workshop item is, wastewater treatment facility plan.

[0:12] So I will hand it over to Shawn and Kelsey and welcome to our consultants.

[0:18] Thanks for being here tonight.

[0:20] Good evening.

[0:20] Included in your packet is the draft, wastewater facility planning document.

[0:26] It's, I think just it's 400 pages.

[0:28] I assume everybody's read that word.

[0:29] For what? Arsenal's perfect.

[0:31] Yeah. Okay, great.

[0:32] Anyway, so we're gonna we've got our friends here from Bolten Menk

[0:36] that are going to go through a PowerPoint kind of give a high level overview

[0:39] that should be done in 4 or 5 hours.

[0:41] And moving on.

[0:43] Kelsey had a couple things on the timeline she wanted to highlight and

[0:47] yeah, just

[0:48] a reminder, this has been sort of a three year process in 2023.

[0:52] We started with a feasibility study with SCH, and they kind of outlined

[0:57] some of the needs that we had moving forward.

[0:59] 2024, we had an RFQ for an engineering

[1:02] firm to do the facility plan and that was selected.

[1:05] And they spent almost two years working on this plan.

[1:08] So the first year was a lot of, asset information

[1:11] gathering, but we had on our at our facility.

[1:14] And then the next year was planning out the alternatives

[1:17] and all that sort of thing. So it's been a long time.

[1:19] They've been working on it.

[1:20] So we have Jacob Pichelmann

[1:23] with Bolton Menk, with Ryan Helgardiner, and then Hannah.

[1:28] Thank you.

[1:28] Kelsey

[1:31] Well. Thank you.

[1:32] It's good to see everyone again.

[1:33] I think last time we were in April, we did the,

[1:37] wastewater plant tour, so hopefully that was a good experience for everyone.

[1:40] And, you get to see, the full extent of the need out there, right?

[1:45] So that's the goal.

[1:45] And there's a lot of important decisions that gotta be made here,

[1:49] by the city council.

[1:50] So that's what we'll be talking about today.

[1:52] I know your time is valuable, so I'll try to keep it to, like, 15 to 20 minutes.

[1:56] And then, if there's any questions along the way, don't hesitate,

[2:00] to stop me. So.

[2:05] So what are we talking about as a wastewater facility plan?

[2:08] As Kelsey stated, you know, this is a about a two year process

[2:11] that we started in 20, 24, in the spring.

[2:15] And it's kind of like at this moment.

[2:16] So what what does the wastewater facility plan Covid 20 planning document?

[2:20] So we're looking at,

[2:22] the City of Red Wing needs over the next 20 years that can be,

[2:25] from a permanent perspective or capacity perspective, basically,

[2:29] your ability to treat your wastewater over

[2:31] the next 20 years is what's encompassed in this report.

[2:34] So, we looked at things like community growth,

[2:37] that includes your both residential and industrial, projections.

[2:43] You support, six industrial uses in town at the moment.

[2:46] Looking at your 20 year design condition and your flows,

[2:50] your loading capacity at the plant,

[2:52] and then ultimately looking at your existing infrastructure, your evaluation,

[2:55] what is your ability to meet those 20 year needs with the existing infrastructure

[2:59] that you have?

[3:00] And what kind of improvements do you need to consider, into the future?

[3:04] So that includes permanent regulations.

[3:06] That's a big consideration.

[3:07] You know, your ability to meet your current permit limits

[3:10] and what possibly could come in the future that could impact the type of processes

[3:13] you have out there and the type of money that you need to spend to do that.

[3:17] And then looking at all those types of alternatives,

[3:20] basically throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks and making

[3:24] sure there's no stone left unturned, to be thorough in this process.

[3:29] So you're looking at every possible alternative.

[3:32] And obviously with that cost analysis, funding analysis, user rate

[3:36] analysis, all those things that you're going to care about,

[3:38] and ultimately,

[3:40] coming into the conclusion of what's

[3:41] recommended of capital improvements over the next 20 years,

[3:44] this report is important for more than just that.

[3:47] It is required, for PCA project approval.

[3:51] So we need to submit this thing to the PCA for approval.

[3:54] And that's really the first step of the process, in a long phase

[3:58] to actually implement improvements, including design and construction

[4:01] that would occur after this.

[4:02] So we're still at the planning level,

[4:04] what you'll be seeing later in this presentation

[4:06] or planning level estimates, that they will be refined

[4:09] further as you get into the design and construction phases.

[4:13] The other thing that this

[4:13] report does is it's required for being eligible for state funding.

[4:18] So, this allows you to get on

[4:21] or state funding lists to be considered for, low interest loan opportunities,

[4:25] grant opportunities and all those things that, are needed to make this project

[4:29] affordable for the community.

[4:33] So diving into, community growth,

[4:36] just to cover some of the slides, we actually talked about,

[4:39] the wastewater site when we met at the conference room there.

[4:43] So reiterating some of the things we already talked about, which is,

[4:47] make sure you remember some of the important needs here.

[4:49] So community growth,

[4:51] when we did it, complete a 2040 community plan, I think in 2019.

[4:55] So we did use population estimates from that document.

[4:59] 2020 census population of, just under 16,800,

[5:04] with a 2040 projected population of just under, 18,000.

[5:08] So what we did for a 20 year planning document is extrapolate

[5:11] that to 2045, which is 20 years from now.

[5:15] And it came up with a designed population of just under 18,100.

[5:20] So that gets baked into, wastewater projections

[5:23] and your ability to treat that waste, from all your users.

[5:26] The other thing we did was engage with, the community development department.

[5:31] It's not just looking at 20 needs.

[5:34] We wanted to at least, you know, given the constraints

[5:37] of that existing site, you have to be able to know,

[5:40] with a little more certainty that, you know, even in 40, 50 years

[5:43] from now, that that site and support, your potential growth.

[5:47] So looking at, 20

[5:50] plus years beyond so undeveloped, properties within city limits,

[5:54] community development identified something like 450 acres or,

[5:58] just under 1600 units of, rather than just development.

[6:02] And there's also areas outside of the city limits that could be potential

[6:06] for annexation to 675 acres or just under 24,

[6:10] under residential units, for a total of about 4000 residential units.

[6:15] So you add all that up?

[6:16] You're talking in an ultimate population, of over 25,000, potentially.

[6:22] You know, it's kind of a crystal ball type stuff.

[6:24] And you don't really know if and when that's going to happen,

[6:27] but it's at least as part of the decision making process to be able to take that a

[6:31] number of it.

[6:31] Okay.

[6:32] You know, if we build something here, we expect to be the last another 50,

[6:35] 60 years.

[6:36] Currently this structure has or is this likely to be viable long term?

[6:41] I think you'll find the answer is yes.

[6:44] Lastly, as far

[6:45] as growth for us, we did talk to your industrial users.

[6:49] You have six permanent industrial users.

[6:51] Of those, three are significant,

[6:54] as far as their loadings and inflow contributions.

[6:57] So the total, as far as, flows, you're looking at eight, 12%

[7:02] of your overall flows at the plant, which is, the smaller piece of the pie.

[7:06] But as far as the pollutant loading impacts,

[7:08] which is really what the wastewater plant is doing. Right.

[7:10] If you had perfectly clean water coming out of your sewer system,

[7:13] you could just discharge the river.

[7:14] The purpose of the plan is to remove the pollutants and, the pollutant

[7:18] loadings coming from the industrial be for two years, can go 35 to 50%.

[7:23] So they are a much bigger footprint when it comes to those.

[7:25] So, we are projecting some growth with industrial contributions

[7:30] and, overall, a little bit of growth in your flows.

[7:33] In other words, in the next 20 years.

[7:37] This is on a map, that we got from community development.

[7:40] So it just shows those areas to future development.

[7:44] So the areas to the west are within city limits that that's a 450 acres or so

[7:49] that could be developed in the area

[7:50] to the east and east of the high school is that 675 acres,

[7:55] that is outside of the city limits currently that could be developed.

[7:58] So all in all, again, kind of a guessing game with

[8:01] whether or not that's going to happen and when.

[8:04] But again, we wanted to at least,

[8:07] think about this for the future.

[8:11] So getting into some of the history that we talked about in depth last time,

[8:15] and that was really the

[8:15] the purpose is getting everyone out there to see these things historical.

[8:19] Your history and some of the, the precedent that,

[8:22] you know, you had them at home as far as making improvements.

[8:24] And it's pretty consistent with any other community.

[8:27] You know, typically every 20 to 25 years, you're

[8:31] having to do a major infrastructure project at your wastewater plant.

[8:34] The original plan was constructed in 1960.

[8:36] That's 65 years ago.

[8:38] And over that timeframe, you've had that happen with compliance,

[8:42] records and maintenance of the plan that's allowed.

[8:45] That's allowed to last as long as it has remained.

[8:48] So it's really a testament to the operating uses that we have on hand.

[8:51] But these things don't last forever.

[8:54] So again, you're looking at the capital improvements every 20 to 25 years.

[8:59] So, you know, following that timeline around 1980, 20 years

[9:03] after the original project, is when you do the next project following

[9:06] that, it was 1999 to the 2005 timeframe when you did a series of projects.

[9:11] So another 20 to 25 years.

[9:13] And then you've done some smaller projects on your, biosolids

[9:17] digestion site in the last, you know, 10 or 15 years or so.

[9:21] But, you're in that cycle now, so you're at that point where you're at 20 years

[9:26] and you really need to start

[9:27] thinking about planning and designing these things to get it going

[9:30] and positioning yourself to make these improvements affordable for the community.

[9:36] Talking about your aging infrastructure.

[9:38] So again, 20 plus years since your last major project at the wastewater plant.

[9:43] So in that sense, you have a ton of needs out there,

[9:46] where the do nothing option is not an option.

[9:49] And, you're not able to just not do anything.

[9:53] There has to be action taken to, improve, what you have over there.

[9:57] At the very least, retirement, aging, critical infrastructure perspective

[10:02] that set aside other things like permitting

[10:05] long term growth, ability to support your long term growth.

[10:09] So I just want to state that up front, doing nothing is not something

[10:12] that you can really entertain.

[10:14] So we expect it to serve a slice of, of different components out there.

[10:17] You structures

[10:18] in your buried pipe, being out there for 50 to 75 years, you're at 65 years.

[10:22] You can see that in some of the structures out there, some of the the solving

[10:26] that's happened over the years,

[10:27] going through all the freeze thaw cycles through the Minnesota climate.

[10:31] You're seeing that I mean,

[10:33] these guys within the last two months did a pretty significant repair

[10:37] on, trickling in filter cutter because it's a big chunk of concrete

[10:40] fell off the side and it was, you know, 20 plus grand to be able to fix that.

[10:44] So those things happen

[10:45] at an increasing rate as you, wait longer and longer to repair

[10:49] some of this infrastructure

[10:50] and you have those, side expenses that you have to take on.

[10:55] So things like you're building components and systems, roofing,

[10:58] waterproofing doors, hardware, electrical distribution systems,

[11:04] those are items

[11:04] that are usually in that 20 to 30 year range for expected useful life.

[11:08] And then, things like the process, mechanical and chemical, feed components,

[11:13] the things that make the plan work and actually treat the buildings

[11:16] that are in direct exposure

[11:18] to that wastewater is typically more like a 20 year item.

[11:21] So, you're right there with a lot of those things.

[11:24] As far as the overall age.

[11:25] And then in the last project, because, you know, 20 years of wastewater exposure

[11:29] with some of the stuff. So,

[11:32] you know, I like to compare it to your guys's homes or businesses.

[11:35] Right.

[11:35] Every 20 years replacing the roof, you're saying your doors are hardware,

[11:40] your, water heater, your boiler.

[11:43] All the little systems in your house and the tens of thousands of dollars.

[11:47] Right.

[11:48] Take that in a wastewater plant

[11:51] and it's tens of billions of dollars.

[11:52] It's the same thing you got, you got to replace these things

[11:55] as they get old.

[11:59] So beyond just aging infrastructure,

[12:01] it's there's other outside factors that are a driving force in this process.

[12:06] It's permitting and the limitations of the existing plant.

[12:10] So as far as a permanent perspective goes to PCAs is undergoing

[12:14] their nutrient reduction strategy that we actually got some news on.

[12:17] They may be pausing that for a little bit.

[12:19] We'll see what that actually means.

[12:21] But you know,

[12:22] we expect over the next 5 to 10 years that you will have a relationship

[12:26] that, that will significantly alter the types of processes

[12:29] you need to have in that plan.

[12:31] What you have out there right now will not nitrogen.

[12:34] Another one is total sulfate, for class for your wild rice standards, sulfate.

[12:39] It is toxic to wild rice,

[12:41] we suspect is your next permit that you will have a sulfate limit.

[12:44] There's not really, from a treatment standpoint, anything to do with that one.

[12:48] That's more of a matter of, you know, getting a variance or something

[12:51] to kind of kick the can down the road because it's not something

[12:53] you really treat for.

[12:54] But, another one to think about PFOA or forever forever chemicals or a hot

[13:01] button topic that, that probably most of you have heard about at this point.

[13:05] You know, that's another one

[13:06] where the PCA is starting to implement their biosolids, strategy.

[13:10] And now, operators out there are taking samples

[13:13] for p 500 mile cells to verify where they sit.

[13:17] You know, and fortunately you're in the lower tier as far as we know.

[13:20] So, you may not have much implications

[13:24] for us in your bio, so I'll just it's a good thing.

[13:27] So the big driver there is really a huge reduction if you get on the nitrogen limit

[13:32] at that point, the types of processes out there will not work.

[13:37] The other factor is your existing facility.

[13:39] So again, your biological treatment process is limited.

[13:44] Not just in what they can treat, but also the space that it takes up,

[13:49] you can't accommodate the growth that you would,

[13:51] possibly foresee with the existing processes out there.

[13:55] There's no room to build the same thing that you have.

[13:58] You can rehab it.

[13:59] You can construct, new in its place, but you're not expanding that process in

[14:05] any substantial manner that would account for your growth potential.

[14:09] So with that, you have a small site.

[14:12] It is a four acre site.

[14:13] It's sandwiched between the Mississippi River and a railroad.

[14:16] There's very limited space out there.

[14:18] And it's limited to three miles of storage.

[14:20] You know, the operators are having to haul off 20% of your biosolids

[14:24] each year to other communities because there's no room to the storage

[14:27] at the tanks to do it, and there's no way to build new ones.

[14:30] Other issues, including floodplain, access,

[14:34] issues, getting to the plant during flood conditions, could be address

[14:38] and code compliance issues, especially in your biosolids digestion process where,

[14:43] there's a ton of work and expense associated with separating that out.

[14:47] So it means, code compliance or fire protection.

[14:50] So, variety issues with the existing plant.

[14:55] So getting it

[14:56] into general alternative is to kind of take a setback at high level.

[15:00] The next slide will get a little more granular for the types of alternatives we,

[15:04] looked at.

[15:05] But just at a high level, you know, the first thing we want to look at is

[15:09] constructing new technologies on the existing site.

[15:13] You know, you have a process that takes up a lot of room.

[15:15] It's very efficient.

[15:16] And what it does, it's good for the limits you have to meet now.

[15:19] But if you look at future amendments are going to be able to do that.

[15:21] So, being able to identify new processes that are going to support

[15:26] your foreseeable roles and also be expandable is to allow you to to build off

[15:31] and and build a more infrastructure, which apparently can't do,

[15:35] and then have that infrastructure meet your current and future needs.

[15:39] The other component with this is maximizing reuse

[15:42] of existing infrastructure.

[15:43] So a big cost savings is you do have stuff on that site

[15:46] that has value that you can repurpose into new things.

[15:50] And that saves money the long term versus this next alternative

[15:54] that we'll talk about.

[15:55] So constructing a new facility, an alternative site.

[15:59] The main benefit with that is that it gives you,

[16:02] you know, surplus space, to think about for future growth,

[16:06] whether or not you needed it, you know, so at least we wanted, to take a hard

[16:10] look at what that looks like,

[16:12] so you can see the costs are and realize that it's pretty expensive.

[16:16] We've got a plan.

[16:17] Largely due to the demands of your wastewater.

[16:19] You have to plan on it to a different location.

[16:22] It's been a lot of the money and piling in, pummeling us.

[16:25] And overall, you'll see that it is by far the highest expense.

[16:29] Other options that, we entertain as a part of,

[16:32] the facility plan is, you know, what it cost to rehabilitate what you have.

[16:37] We are. You said this is not really viable.

[16:40] Staff will do nothing.

[16:41] It's also really not viable to rehabilitate what you have because,

[16:45] a you don't have, the space for expansion.

[16:48] And you're also allowing us to to process, you're not able to do that with,

[16:52] there's also the issue with the future terminal limits.

[16:55] If you get a limit in the next ten years, that investment

[16:58] you've made in your existing process is the same investment.

[17:02] It's, it's a poor investment.

[17:04] So we would not, suggest investing

[17:07] significant dollars and just redoing what you have.

[17:10] You may have to, address things as they come up over

[17:14] the next few years, but to build what you have is not a good idea.

[17:19] Yeah.

[17:20] Option here is regionalization that we talked quite a bit about,

[17:24] the last time around.

[17:25] Excuse me.

[17:27] So we, we took a hard

[17:30] look at this, and there's some practical engineering issues, actually, Regionalize,

[17:35] you know, there's also, you know, the business, a wastewater.

[17:40] Right?

[17:41] And you'll be able to plant that supports your community,

[17:44] your growth, taking care of your needs.

[17:47] You know, as soon as you regionalize, you become,

[17:50] often a customer of a sanitary sewer district,

[17:54] you know, you get out of the wastewater business in that sense,

[17:57] and you lack control, setting your own rates,

[18:01] you know, doing the types of improvements that you want to do.

[18:04] So there's that issue, you have,

[18:08] you know, the engineering issue is the goal.

[18:10] And where you stand, who is going to be contributing to that plan?

[18:14] There's not a good, sop for that,

[18:17] you know, relative to communities around you.

[18:21] So from those reasons, regionalization is not, considered by a player,

[18:26] it doesn't mean that you can

[18:27] create capacity and accommodate growth for someone else to develop in your career

[18:32] or there's

[18:32] which to you, the future, but

[18:34] you're not looking to build a new plant somewhere outside of the city.

[18:37] And it's just as an analysis and get it there and then have to,

[18:42] construct this answer.

[18:42] This is a district that would still be a customer.

[18:46] So for those reasons, regionalization is not considered

[18:51] the best option.

[18:55] So getting into the alternatives analysis, we won't spend a ton of time

[18:59] on on the processes themselves, but just kind of,

[19:02] clumping that in a few different buckets here.

[19:04] So the one, is the rehab, your existing plans.

[19:09] And then an alternative to two through six, is kind of,

[19:13] one bucket of getting a new technology on the existing site.

[19:18] And we looked at five different processes.

[19:20] That would help reduce the footprint of the treatment

[19:23] technology and allow you to,

[19:27] provide more space for the future of the structure.

[19:29] And then the last alternative is also through the seven,

[19:32] which is relocating the plant to an entirely new site.

[19:35] So, there's two really components to this, right?

[19:38] It's the costs, which might have some sticker shock on

[19:41] some of those tasks right across the board,

[19:44] even if some of the rehab alternative is not just to rehab what you have.

[19:49] There's also the evaluation criteria, you know,

[19:51] regardless of the cost, do these improvements meet our needs?

[19:56] So strictly from a cost basis, there's kind of three tiers.

[19:59] The first tier is a rehab.

[20:01] You're looking at something like $60 million to rehab what you have.

[20:04] And again, I'll remind everyone this is planning level estimates.

[20:07] We have a construction estimate of just over 42 million.

[20:10] There's a 20% contingency just to consider whether they're running the ones we have

[20:14] at this stage of the game.

[20:16] Once you get into design, you consider narrowing that contingency

[20:19] and getting some other numbers.

[20:20] But I think, for the process, that's a good estimate.

[20:25] And then saw cost, added on top of that for a total of 60 million.

[20:30] Next tier is that, you know, building new technologies on the existing site.

[20:34] The alternatives two through six, you know, they're all, within a fairly

[20:38] narrow cost range, 140 to $150 million proximately.

[20:44] And then the last year is moving the plant altogether to a new site,

[20:49] $250 million estimates, or, costs escalate quite a bit,

[20:53] but you have to convey that wastewater internally somewhere else

[20:56] and then and build a brand new plant and then not incorporate

[20:59] some of your existing infrastructure in that plant.

[21:03] Yeah.

[21:03] Can I just ask two questions really quick before you go on?

[21:06] Yeah.

[21:07] The, where it says B, an R and B

[21:10] are assumed that's the, the type of facility site.

[21:13] Yes. Right. Okay.

[21:14] And then can you tell me what O and R stands for.

[21:17] Peace of Omar's operation maintenance and replacement costs.

[21:21] Thank you. Yeah.

[21:23] So looking at the evaluation criteria, you know, clearly,

[21:26] alternative, the $160 million is by far the least expensive, right?

[21:31] Is that the best idea?

[21:32] Answer no, because the only thing that really does for you

[21:35] is, is it meets your current permitting, and it has relatively low.

[21:38] And our LMR costs for your existing plant,

[21:42] as far as its ability to meet future permitting, its cost is very, very low.

[21:46] It's reliability, ease of operation, fairly low expandability.

[21:51] It uses the site very low and capital costs.

[21:54] It's a little counterintuitive, but that's also very low,

[21:57] because assuming that

[21:59] eventually you will get more permanent or more stringent requirements,

[22:02] you will have to make an investment in one of those other options,

[22:06] in which case you need all the money you have.

[22:09] The problem is it's more or less sunk, and over the life

[22:12] cycle of these improvements is going to be the least cost effective.

[22:16] So that

[22:17] is the lowest for other, all set of attorneys,

[22:22] alternatives, 2 to 6, you know, very.

[22:25] And they're pros and cons relative to one another.

[22:27] The space utilization and how big they are, their ability to meet future

[22:32] urban limits, all those things, fluctuate based on the prices you look at.

[22:38] But ultimately, what we came to is that alternative five to the bar,

[22:41] which we'll talk about on the next slide is the best alternative.

[22:45] As far as overall scoring up and down, especially when it comes

[22:48] to the expandability and utilization of space on that site.

[22:52] And then alternative seven, scored,

[22:56] kind of the mid-range overall because it is, you know,

[23:00] you would have the ability to meet current and future permit limits.

[23:02] You have to rely on the process that you would build on a new site.

[23:05] It would be expandable, but capital costs are very high.

[23:09] And then you're also paying extra money to of that to different sites.

[23:13] There's more energy costs and, more costs in general for that.

[23:17] Yeah.

[23:17] So why does number three mean future permitting?

[23:22] And then the rest don't

[23:25] the rest do.

[23:26] So alternative three is an advanced in process of a membrane bioreactor.

[23:31] Essentially you're incorporating

[23:33] a membrane into your treatment process that filters out the waste.

[23:37] Essentially, you can get down to very, very low organics, very low solids.

[23:41] It's just it generally produces a higher quality effluent.

[23:44] It's it's overkill for what you need based on the expected

[23:47] permit limitations that we received from the previous part of this process.

[23:51] So it does for well as for future programing, because of that.

[23:55] But it's also the more expensive it's also harder to operate.

[23:58] There's maintenance and repair associated

[24:01] with a number of replace it every 3 to 5 years.

[24:05] It's all those things that make it less desirable.

[24:08] Thank you.

[24:09] So for the highs.

[24:10] And that said, before, you know, in the sense of the alternative, 5 or 6

[24:15] and seven is still a good score.

[24:16] You know, you're able to nature and the future determines that alternative.

[24:22] You know,

[24:22] the questions with kind of how the scoring plays,

[24:26] maybe

[24:28] just for like when we talk to our, you know, people in the community.

[24:31] And of course, I'm no expert on the alternatives and different things, but,

[24:35] two through six like these are different

[24:38] like chemical or biological ways of dealing with weight loss.

[24:42] Or is that the most general way to, like describe it?

[24:46] Yeah, they

[24:47] are all biological treatment processes and they're all slightly different.

[24:51] Okay. Different way to do the same thing.

[24:54] That all have pros and cons about how they lay out, how big they are

[24:58] or how effective they are.

[24:59] Yeah.

[25:00] That have kind of the message, you know,

[25:03] and then from the large big picture perspective,

[25:06] you know, the cost estimating is probably within the margin of error here.

[25:10] You know, they're all I would say pretty close.

[25:13] I would confidently say that alternative is reason

[25:15] the most expensive for the membranes.

[25:17] I would probably say alternative to that.

[25:19] A big process with a lot of things, would be more expensive than alternatives

[25:23] 4 or 5 and six.

[25:24] So we're very good at stating relative costs.

[25:27] I think, you know, 140 range is a good,

[25:31] estimate for what you have in the bill builder, across the board.

[25:34] So thank you.

[25:35] And your and then you would be cited in some of the based on allegation

[25:39] of our commercial or industrial like even waste what they're what works.

[25:44] But I did kind of need to clean those or whatever it is for that.

[25:49] I don't know if that question makes sense.

[25:51] Yeah.

[25:52] That's what you're kind of determining which process is most appropriate is that.

[25:56] Yeah.

[25:56] Like a good chunk of the report that indicates, itself to, you know,

[26:00] projecting out your floors and loads and that analyzes all the alternatives.

[26:04] So we're we're using the same baseline setup for the treatment of the waste

[26:08] for each alternative.

[26:09] And each alternative varies in its ability to do that,

[26:13] if that makes sense.

[26:14] That helps a lot.

[26:15] But it's

[26:17] any other questions or.

[26:19] Okay, so I figured this would be an interesting slide

[26:22] because we could start, if you have further questions,

[26:27] not to move on.

[26:28] So just getting into a little bit more on the recommended alternative

[26:31] alternative devices and the biological area to deliver a bath.

[26:36] And this was selected,

[26:39] largely, due to its footprint and ability

[26:43] to expand and a lot of the flexibility with the operations.

[26:47] And it seems very specifically well-suited for your site

[26:51] and the space limitations you have.

[26:53] So it's for the best as far as using the site

[26:56] and being able to dedicate space for future expansion.

[26:59] That's important in this process.

[27:02] There's also and you'll see in the next figure with, some preliminary

[27:05] site, layouts that, we have space allocation

[27:09] for future things that you might need, and you could be more reactive

[27:13] to the future with space on the site that you couldn't,

[27:16] choose what to do with, that includes additional miles of storage.

[27:20] That can be tertiary treatment processes

[27:22] if you're having an even more stringent limits.

[27:24] So, lots of benefits as far as space consumption.

[27:30] You know, and and lastly, competitive as far as capital

[27:33] and our costs, with the other alternatives on the low end.

[27:36] So with all that in mind, you know, this was identified as the best

[27:40] alternative for your site in your needs.

[27:44] We have other facilities we built that are, but,

[27:47] there's four other in the state.

[27:49] So it's, it's a tried and true process that's been around for 25 years.

[27:52] And it has worked well, in with wastewater

[27:56] that's very similar to years, Northfield probably the best example.

[28:00] And we took the opportunity to tour that.

[28:03] I think it was last year by this time,

[28:06] to, to see how it works. Right.

[28:08] Because we knew

[28:08] this was going to be a competitive alternative, with the space layout

[28:12] considerations. So,

[28:15] you know,

[28:16] it's difficult for, you know, investing in something that's brand new.

[28:19] Either you're not going out on a level, something that no one else has done

[28:23] before is also an important aspect of this.

[28:26] And there's four other communities

[28:28] that are very similar to you that have also built this structure,

[28:32] and this will handle anything proposed coming down from the LPC.

[28:37] Yeah. So not anything. Right.

[28:40] So as far as we know.

[28:41] Well that's right. I mean anything that they're looking at.

[28:44] No. This land. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

[28:48] Particularly nitrogen and phosphorus limits that you already have.

[28:52] If there's some you know

[28:53] I can't predict 20 years from now, we're looking for three, right.

[28:56] But the big thing is having that space to do stuff with later on,

[29:00] when you get more strategic urban elements that are in a lot of our right.

[29:04] So this if, if we need to ask for a

[29:09] I'm calling in the past I know it's not that nitrogen right now

[29:13] will this handle the more stringent criteria for nitrogen.

[29:18] Yeah.

[29:19] So they answer that.

[29:21] So like there has been at the, the state regulatory levels, recent developments,

[29:28] even in the last week where they are, pausing the nitrogen, regulation

[29:33] and water quality standards for now, we don't know how long it's going to last

[29:37] to be next week.

[29:38] And I wonder when we're going to pick it back up.

[29:40] So the solution is, is will receive the nitrogen

[29:43] when that happens is, I think, anyone's guess.

[29:47] It could be five years out of ten years from now.

[29:50] But when that happens, it's going to drive

[29:53] what you need to do on that site. And,

[29:57] that process, can be suited.

[29:59] You could you could build it and now or not remove nitrogen

[30:03] and then add on to it later to remove the nitrogen.

[30:05] You could build it all now

[30:07] and then keep cells off line to be able to dedicated for nitrogen later.

[30:11] There's some flexibility with this alternative

[30:13] as well as it relates to the margin that is important to

[30:17] ask your question.

[30:18] Yeah. Okay.

[30:19] And will it eliminate 100% of the nitrogen or is that not

[30:22] possible? No.

[30:25] So the proposed limit that we got.

[30:27] So it's part of the effluent limit request that we had to the PCA, is important

[30:32] because we wanted it to have them tell us, okay, what are we looking at in the next

[30:36] five years?

[30:37] Is a 7.7mg/l.

[30:40] It's pretty.

[30:41] All this process can be removed below that.

[30:44] It will not 100%, but permit regulations

[30:47] that require, you know, 100.

[30:53] You know, since

[30:55] I think we're good.

[30:59] I’m alreay going long aren’t I?

[31:00] So sorry.

[31:01] So I will try to do some of this stuff along with the other questions.

[31:08] Yeah.

[31:09] This is the proposed site layout that we came up with.

[31:12] I mean, you can see the stuff in the red is important.

[31:14] That's existing infrastructure that we would either reuse or repurpose.

[31:18] So that's a lot of, infrastructure that would save money, versus a

[31:22] alternative set on which you would have to build all the new,

[31:26] and then on the blue, I mean, the structure is, is new.

[31:30] The back process would be on the east side

[31:33] there with some of those little, square cells.

[31:36] And then, in the middle, you have some additional clarifiers

[31:40] pumping and, biosolids to water.

[31:43] So that actually we've done that before.

[31:45] We're also going to be building one. Building two.

[31:47] Those are all buildings, that you build,

[31:51] you know, and the other thing,

[31:52] that's important to, to look at with this is the space for future.

[31:56] So it's a little tough to see, but there's a black dotted, area now

[32:00] where we see that there's space allocation for future things.

[32:04] And in multiple different spots.

[32:06] There's other alternatives where the whole site is just to clean up

[32:09] by what you would have to build on day one. Right.

[32:11] And there was no possibility for this.

[32:14] This alternative gives you, additional space.

[32:18] I have a question.

[32:18] How do you how do you do the construction on something like this

[32:22] and keep the existing plant running?

[32:24] Great question.

[32:25] Yeah, that's another, advantage of this alternative is that,

[32:30] you can, you know, currently a good chunk of the existing plant

[32:34] currently doesn't do much, actually, the intermediate,

[32:36] pumping station in the clarifiers is in the RBC process.

[32:41] Could all be taken offline and effectively.

[32:44] That doesn't really change, with what you're producing out there at the moment.

[32:48] And so this this alternative allows you to keep your trickling filters online

[32:52] during construction, which would be needed.

[32:54] And then, you would build this infrastructure and get it up and running.

[32:58] And then you would have to go back and deposit filters later.

[33:02] So it's important to keep the process up and running.

[33:04] And, you know, the smaller footprint is is an advantage because it allows

[33:09] you more flexibility to keep more stuff online.

[33:13] How would this do?

[33:14] We have a storage issue right now the solids.

[33:17] Yeah this is taking more solids out.

[33:19] Or how does this compare to what we,

[33:23] we would project and more solids production in this process.

[33:27] It's removing more waste lagoons. Right.

[33:29] Little more efficiencies and it's rules.

[33:32] Therefore you generate a little more waste.

[33:34] So the other good thing about this alternative,

[33:38] is that it's completely repurposing your, digestion complex there.

[33:43] It's that, building in the red, to the west side of the site.

[33:47] There's multiple enforcer roles.

[33:50] So what we would propose is building new primary clarifiers for the Baff system,

[33:55] and he would convert your existing primary clarifies that have some complications.

[33:59] So I would say they're obsolete at this point in that design.

[34:02] We would convert that to your actual sludge storage.

[34:05] Now you really don't have so you'd have, something like, I think 700,000

[34:11] or more gallons of additional sludge storage with its primary clarifiers.

[34:17] And then the digesters would also be converted

[34:19] into the rolling process and also used for additional storage

[34:23] so that that whole complex system do it in two different things.

[34:27] Is now all dedicated to biosolids through land.

[34:30] And in that space, just to the west of that,

[34:33] could be dedicated for future storage.

[34:36] You know, one thing

[34:37] operators do, like, is a whole years worth of biosolids storage.

[34:41] Right now, you probably wouldn't have that.

[34:43] Probably more like 180 days.

[34:45] But there would be space to do a little more if you wanted or needed.

[34:54] Any questions?

[35:00] Getting in to another interesting slide.

[35:03] So let's talk costs.

[35:05] User costs.

[35:07] So estimated capital costs at $142 million.

[35:11] Obviously not a small price to, we do, you know, a basic financing analysis.

[35:16] This is not a user rate analysis.

[35:18] This is to get you in the ballpark, per year

[35:22] or equivalent residential unit of what?

[35:25] The improvements would ultimately cost the community.

[35:28] So we make some assumptions on, you know,

[35:31] amortization, 2.5% interest rate, 20 year loan term.

[35:35] So capital improvements, average that emerges EIS is $9.1 million per year.

[35:41] You add your own, and our expense on top of that at roughly 6 million

[35:45] or the $15 million in mean

[35:48] you would need to pass it on to your users.

[35:51] This assumes no grain financing to cover any of that.

[35:54] Right?

[35:54] So looking at kind of the worst case scenario condition here, you know, you

[35:59] would be we'll talk on the next slide, but eligible for multiple grant, funds.

[36:04] But anyway,

[36:06] to make the comparison here, your current monthly average sewer bill,

[36:09] based on 600 cubic feet or roughly 4500 gallons per month,

[36:14] it is $48 a month for the average user.

[36:19] The affordability threshold.

[36:20] So this is what the state uses to determine the grant.

[36:23] Eligibility is taken as 1.4% of your median

[36:27] household income, based on your current, average.

[36:31] My, that would be up to about $76 a month.

[36:34] Means that you would need to raise your rates up to $76 a month

[36:39] in order to access affordability based grant that we'll talk about

[36:44] as one part of the money that you would access to pay for, as in structure.

[36:49] So you need to show the state

[36:51] that you are raising your rates to accommodate this debt service.

[36:54] And then the past a certain point,

[36:56] you will become eligible for other parts of the money,

[36:59] to take the worst case scenario as a comparison there.

[37:03] So if you did all the improvements with no grant financing whatsoever,

[37:07] you would be looking at about $180 a month per residential user,

[37:14] versus the $48 that they currently pay the 200 plus percent increase.

[37:19] Right.

[37:19] So the goal within an financing scenario is that,

[37:23] any dollars that the project generates

[37:27] over your affordability threshold, you're wanting to, you know, cover that, right?

[37:31] You know, if the state says you can afford 1.4%, that's what

[37:35] you don't want to pay more than that, right?

[37:37] So that's where the grant, programs can keep getting that little,

[37:43] let's do that.

[37:45] So haven't we been increasing the rates

[37:48] to be able to do this where we, frankly,

[37:51] so that a $48 increase in your Kelsey,

[37:54] which is understandably in

[37:58] person,

[38:00] that's our 2025 fee schedule for that $40.

[38:03] We're proposing another 6% increase for 2026.

[38:08] We are in the process of redoing

[38:11] our rate study at this time, to see where we're at.

[38:14] Then. Okay. Thank you.

[38:17] And since 2020, increasing the rates from 6% a year to try to get us closer

[38:21] to that affordability threshold, planning for these major improvements.

[38:26] Perfect. Thanks for that.

[38:29] Yeah. It's not an uncommon rate.

[38:30] I mean, your rates are still

[38:32] I would call a relatively low compared to other communities.

[38:35] That's one slide I forgot to add is maybe a comparison

[38:38] to where other folks are paying.

[38:39] But essentially any community that does a large infrastructure project

[38:43] ends up paying up to their affordability or a little higher.

[38:46] You know, so, you know, usually when you see communities with lower rates,

[38:50] just because they haven't done a project in a long time, they're do free.

[38:53] So, you know, $76 is not you know, it's a lot of money, right?

[38:58] That's not you know, it's not nothing.

[39:00] Right.

[39:00] But, you know, that's what the state thinks is affordable,

[39:03] based on where you're at in the community.

[39:06] So what what percentage of projects

[39:11] get the grant money to, to keep it in 76?

[39:14] In our case, $76.40.

[39:16] It's a yeah, it's a ballpark.

[39:19] It's a competitive scoring process.

[39:21] So we'll talk more about the funding.

[39:23] But you get to submit and, your project to be placed on the project priority list

[39:28] within the clean water revolving Funds and within Public Facilities Authority.

[39:32] And then you become on a list of, you know, 4 or 500 projects

[39:35] that you're competing with for the same pot of money.

[39:39] You know, if you have project needs that are over your 40 million,

[39:42] you are eligible for that money.

[39:44] There's that that's, you know, within certain it's just whether or not

[39:48] a legislature appropriates, a lot of money to cover, state's needs.

[39:54] And if your project is ranked high enough and that a dotted line is below

[39:58] or you're listed and you were eligible to receive that money, and usually it is

[40:02] claimed to be a waiting game.

[40:04] And the key here is positioning the project.

[40:07] So you're in a spot on that list where and when

[40:10] that money is available, you're able to utilize it and strike.

[40:15] And then as part of our contract with both Bolten Menk that you're

[40:17] helping us again with the funding and the grants in that process.

[40:21] Yeah, that's that's what we do.

[40:23] We have a dedicated funding team.

[40:24] That's all they do is help with these types of, programs.

[40:28] You know, I would say, you know, I'm a little bit, I guess, is that,

[40:31] you know, to, to make you know, our company has by far

[40:36] the most, coverage as far as aid programs in the state.

[40:40] You know, so we're very well versed in and these programs

[40:44] are not to get you money.

[40:45] So that's definitely something we will be helping with

[40:47] and have been helping with in other projects, including, the tennis

[40:51] station and, drinking revolving fund money

[40:55] that I think is being processed here shortly, for approvals.

[40:59] And the Soren's Bluff project as well.

[41:01] It got some EPA grant dollars.

[41:03] So we help with all that.

[41:05] Thank you.

[41:11] So a little bit more on the funding.

[41:13] So obviously the the goal here is to make sure

[41:15] project is affordable for the community.

[41:17] So, you know, another piece of this is if you can implement projects in phases

[41:22] that can be helpful to break off chunks of it because you could be

[41:25] you can have multiple phases of eligibility for some of these programs.

[41:29] So, you know, with the nature of the improvements

[41:32] you're looking at, you probably looking at

[41:33] maybe up to three projects that we've talked about with city staff.

[41:36] You know what?

[41:37] What we didn't talk a lot of the details as well.

[41:38] Look at the baked in those cost estimates.

[41:40] But there is work at the main

[41:41] limitation that we would have, you know, 4 to $5 million.

[41:44] There's a sewer line project at the Levee Park, to address any issues.

[41:49] And then there's the wastewater planning improvements.

[41:51] I would expect if there's three solid projects out of here.

[41:55] You know, within the hundred and 42 million that you saw.

[41:59] So funding opportunities, like we talked,

[42:02] the, the PFA, that the Public Facilities Authority is the, government program.

[42:06] They repairs, these programs.

[42:10] So a lot of revolving fund is, is launched.

[42:13] Oh interest loan program.

[42:14] So they offer 20 to 30 year, loan terms.

[42:17] Right now, interest rates are usually hovering in that 2 to 3%.

[42:21] So we would have to that percentage to,

[42:25] cultivate some of the, the cost.

[42:29] The other programs here we're getting into the grants is the point

[42:32] sources and implementation grants.

[42:33] So that's that program specifically.

[42:35] There for if a community gets a more stringent limit, like nitrogen,

[42:40] for instance, you would likely be eligible to dip it into this program.

[42:46] You know, it's the same thing. Okay.

[42:48] You need to be a nitrogen limit.

[42:49] And you go, okay, well, you tell us, do this.

[42:52] You need money to do it.

[42:54] That's what those programs for us,

[42:56] the thing the legislature did

[42:58] pass higher caps on these programs,

[43:02] which can be a double edged sword because, you know,

[43:04] that means the projects at the very top are eligible for even more money.

[43:07] And maybe that dotted line, calls that up a list, a little bit

[43:11] if, if less projects, you know, more of the, the bonds.

[43:14] But, overall, you know, it's a good thing that you're able to access more money

[43:19] through leasing, potentially up to $12 million, which I wouldn't

[43:22] be fully eligible for based on the major improvements that we're talking about.

[43:26] The other one is the water infrastructure

[43:29] fund or with that's the affordability based grant program.

[43:32] So as soon as you hit that affordability threshold or higher on your debt service

[43:37] for the project, that's where a grant like this can kick in up to $10 million,

[43:41] which you would be eligible for based on the cost estimating.

[43:44] So, you know, I fully expect you're eligible for $22 million

[43:49] between those two programs.

[43:50] Based on what we're talking about today.

[43:53] The real challenge is actually getting access to those funds

[43:56] and and position yourself to be, in the driver's

[43:59] seat to get it all sponsored and competitive in other projects.

[44:01] So that's where you got to, you know,

[44:05] be shovel ready, essentially.

[44:07] And, and show that you're making efforts

[44:10] towards, you know, doing the project.

[44:13] And there's other grants and funds available for us besides those two.

[44:18] Those are the two major programs within the Public Facilities Authority.

[44:22] The other ones that were on this list.

[44:24] Here are the special appropriations program set that funding, that's,

[44:29] direct bonding requests that you could make to the legislature,

[44:33] to be named in a bonding bill for a requested amount of grant.

[44:37] And then there's federal funding that we could go after.

[44:40] Potentially,

[44:45] so you can USDA

[44:47] is the typical, federal funding source.

[44:50] You're actually too big to qualify under that program.

[44:53] That would be part of the tried and true federal sources throughout,

[44:57] through the feds, which has a grant alone that has a 10,000 population cap.

[45:03] So, you actually wouldn't be eligible for USDA funding in this case?

[45:07] Trying to rack my brain.

[45:09] I don't I'm probably missing something.

[45:11] I could get that. Thanks. Yeah.

[45:15] So it's about funding.

[45:18] That's a big one where, you know, often you can do the math on the project.

[45:22] Costs, subtract off the grant eligibility that you would expect

[45:26] through points, sources with programs, and then you get,

[45:30] you know, maybe a pot of money that you're still above your affordability.

[45:33] That's where, you know, every request for that makes sense

[45:37] and is pretty defensible, you know, with those that is competitive, right?

[45:41] I mean, you know, not everyone gets direct, appropriation every year.

[45:45] All these requests don't, get approved.

[45:47] So you get to come up with a good narrative, right as a community, as a

[45:52] as it's been a very well run on this is you haven't had to rely on other programs.

[45:57] You don't have any existing debt right

[45:59] now, and you're taking care of the needs of this project long term.

[46:03] Well, that's a pretty good story.

[46:04] You also have a lot of industry involvement is supported by this plan.

[46:08] And, you know, there's a growing community

[46:11] and input room to grow, you know, as another community

[46:14] wants to come over the wastewater towards you and be a customer of Red Wing.

[46:17] You could potentially accommodate that.

[46:19] So and those are all things like can get it

[46:21] baked into the narrative of trying to get those right appropriate as well as

[46:26] we help with the application.

[46:27] So we work with you guys on

[46:31] lastly a couple other minor ones.

[46:34] You a climate resiliency grant.

[46:36] There's some money out there that could be eligible.

[46:39] So we're in a small practice and a green project that involved in support of.

[46:43] So basically incorporating green elements into the into the design

[46:48] that can can cost to, to do those things but

[46:51] also open up some grant eligibility.

[46:54] Those are smaller chunks.

[46:56] Usually that's considered

[47:01] you know, the questions that are funding.

[47:07] Yeah.

[47:09] Mr. mayor, council member staff.

[47:11] Thank you. Brian Helgardner.

[47:13] I did want to mention that we again, to brag a little bit.

[47:15] We do have a very robust,

[47:18] dedicated following team that will look at every avenue out there.

[47:21] We have worked, on multiple projects in the past to city staff, and,

[47:25] and we've been successful on Main Street, other projects to lift station.

[47:29] There's a lot of things out there that we have been successful on,

[47:32] and we will continue to look at every afternoon out there.

[47:34] We also have a lobbyist on staff now.

[47:37] So we certainly would be able to help with any lobbying, things like that.

[47:40] I know there's been some concern over some of the regionalization

[47:44] that's going on out there, but we at this point are,

[47:48] in a spot where they're not necessarily ahead of the game on that.

[47:51] They're there to talk about it.

[47:53] But there's not been an actual plan on how to document.

[47:56] We're actually sitting in a pretty good spot or the city sitting in a good spot

[48:00] right now.

[48:00] I think it is important to, to what Jake said about,

[48:04] forwarding as much of the project as you can and getting a shovel ready.

[48:07] So getting your borings, getting your design, getting your things,

[48:10] kind of some of that up.

[48:10] Pretty stuff ahead of time done,

[48:13] I think at that point you will fully be in the driver's seat.

[48:17] I don't think there is any concern over that regionalization.

[48:19] So, I just want to mention that again, because that's a major component, right?

[48:24] The cost is pretty low.

[48:24] You look at it and say, oh, wow, that's a lot of money.

[48:28] And it is.

[48:29] So let's try to do it all down.

[48:30] And I think we can certainly all of this, I just want to

[48:34] thank you.

[48:38] Last night it took about 50 minutes.

[48:40] So sorry.

[48:43] So just getting into lastly project schedule.

[48:46] What are the timelines here?

[48:48] So the facility plan, we finished here in October.

[48:51] It's in draft form.

[48:53] So there's a little bit of work to do with,

[48:55] to add some of those PCA forms for the project priority

[48:58] list applications that will enable that as you get on the funding list.

[49:02] I look at the thing, we're here today at the council workshop talking about it,

[49:05] and then ultimately on the public hearing will need to be, scheduled,

[49:10] as part of the facility with that approval process,

[49:12] along with the council resolution to adopt this plan

[49:16] and, you know, we'll talk with staff about what is the best time to do that.

[49:20] But any time between essentially December and February, you can do that for

[49:25] the facility plan needs to be submitted to the PCA by March 6th of 2026.

[49:29] So we are ahead of the game as far as the season goes.

[49:33] So the other piece is the funding.

[49:36] So, the the IEP submittal is due June of next year

[49:40] and we will help with that and get that submitted.

[49:42] And that puts you on the list for competitive scoring and placement.

[49:46] And I ultimately get it published in the fall of each year.

[49:49] So you'll see where you rank, likely

[49:52] in October or November of 2026.

[49:56] And that helps you kind of start

[49:59] the decision making process and some of these other things. So,

[50:03] and then these

[50:04] requests are typically odd number of years.

[50:07] I say typically because that what's used to be normal

[50:10] and I don't know that there's anything normal anymore, a bonding bill was passed

[50:15] earlier this year and a number of years, and it's only an even number of years.

[50:18] But, you know, we are on top of those, regular requests.

[50:23] You know, if there's some new exhibit next year, you know, we will help with that.

[50:27] But formally, it would be a number of years.

[50:29] So as early as ‘27, and then, like Brian said,

[50:35] there's no benefit in waiting.

[50:36] It's a lose. Lose to wait.

[50:38] You're prolonging, the construction rate, which has only go up

[50:43] and and you're not actively positioning yourself,

[50:46] to be in the driver's seat for some of some of the funding opportunities.

[50:50] So there's no benefit in waiting to, begin design.

[50:54] You know, you can get going on this on a little seminary, desires next year.

[50:58] And then position yourself to get plans

[51:01] submitted in, in the final design later on.

[51:03] So, you know, the message is don't wait, because there is no benefit to doing that.

[51:08] And then lastly, construction, you know, once you are, once you convert,

[51:13] when you receive all that funding that you need to make it affordable.

[51:16] You're talking about probably a three year construction

[51:19] project out in a wastewater plant by itself.

[51:22] So best case scenario, you know, you get on those funding lists next fall,

[51:27] you make a request potentially in 27,

[51:32] you work on design elements over the next two years,

[51:35] you know, your positioning yourself for,

[51:37] construction project again as early as 2028,

[51:40] with the completion of something like 2031, you know, if there's delays in

[51:45] receiving that funding, which are typical, can take years to secure the funding.

[51:49] You know, that's where we're showing a little more, or,

[51:52] you know, a wider range for that construction phase,

[51:54] because you're not going to proceed with the project until, you know,

[51:59] you have the funding.

[52:00] We probably then the funding.

[52:02] So key goals is be proactive in the position in funding opportunities,

[52:06] the years, implement these projects in a manner that implements

[52:10] it immediately and to me is very critical in this process. So

[52:17] the ahead

[52:19] I want immediate questions. There we go.

[52:21] How much design is going to cost to design

[52:24] and approximate.

[52:28] Great question.

[52:29] I don't know, I we're not that far, I guess, you know,

[52:31] part of that we'll, we'll put together a proposal,

[52:34] and work with staff on that to identify what that scope in a few years.

[52:38] You know, if you go back to.

[52:43] Soft costs so that 18.5%,

[52:46] you know, includes a lot of things, includes all the preliminary engineering

[52:49] or geotechnical work and includes the facility plan and includes

[52:52] engineering design, you know, so when it's all said and done, and so cost

[52:58] like engineering or looking at an 18.5 or

[53:01] so, the 142 as of now is turnkey.

[53:06] 132 million is

[53:09] you hand is the keys and everything is done.

[53:11] Yeah. That includes without inflation.

[53:13] That included a $2,025 with a 20% contingency.

[53:17] So thank you. Yep.

[53:20] Thank you Joe I've got two different time things that I'm curious about.

[53:24] So, when you were talking about

[53:28] it's standard to have delays and so on and so forth.

[53:31] I heard you also talk a lot about 20 years,

[53:35] and then I heard that, you know, the

[53:38] the plan was built in the 60s.

[53:41] And, you know, whenever I've gone through there, it's like a horror film.

[53:44] Know how y'all do it?

[53:46] So I'm curious, is there

[53:50] is there wiggle room in what we're doing right now

[53:52] for those potential delays that are that may or may or may not happen?

[53:58] I mean, help, help me understand that

[54:00] it's you're still functional, you're still working.

[54:03] Right. And it needs to be done.

[54:04] And there is no kicking the can down the road.

[54:06] Understand all of that.

[54:08] And if there are I mean, talk me about that.

[54:12] You just said the word delay kind of a lot of flags went off in my head.

[54:16] Yeah, I mean that that's a risk, right?

[54:18] I mean the delays you can't really help, right?

[54:22] I mean, you're waiting around to position yourself for the funding and

[54:25] strike when you have is right.

[54:27] I think if you take a years to accomplish that and

[54:29] and all those years, you still have a plan around,

[54:31] you still have an old plan at 65 years old that hasn't been,

[54:35] you know, touched to a major degree in 20 years

[54:38] where things break down and you have to fix it.

[54:40] It's not on a column.

[54:41] It feels like every project I do

[54:43] these days, you know, by the time you are ready to do it,

[54:46] one major piece is a plan breaks down and they had to do an emergency.

[54:49] Your parents spend a lot of money.

[54:51] That happens all the time because that's the nature of what you're dealing with.

[54:54] The older the show must go on, must treat wastewater.

[54:58] So there may be unexpected expenses

[55:01] where Kelsey has to stand up here in a future meeting and say,

[55:04] hey, we got to repair this because it broke down.

[55:06] There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.

[55:09] That will likely happen.

[55:11] What that is, I don't know.

[55:13] I mean, I just mentioned, you know, a couple months ago,

[55:17] 2 or 3 months ago, where the clear trickling filter cover

[55:20] that's been identified as something that needs to go,

[55:24] a major chunk of concrete

[55:25] fell off the side of the cover, you know, navigating emergency repairs.

[55:29] That entire contractor to do it. And it wasn't cheap.

[55:31] You know, those things are going to happen.

[55:33] Okay.

[55:34] The other, the other item that I'm curious about is that we just got out.

[55:39] I was inside, this last week, and

[55:43] I'm curious about, like, the, the population, for example,

[55:47] you know, you talk about developable, developable land

[55:51] and if we were to, let's just say all of that land got out, developed

[55:56] and we did increase the population by that amount.

[55:59] And there were other conversations that happened, like, for example,

[56:02] doing infill projects and increasing our density.

[56:06] And we rezone to we've done a bunch of different things.

[56:08] Let's say, for example, our population does spike

[56:12] because we are able to do this unit.

[56:16] So how does that

[56:18] how does that affect our plant.

[56:23] Does it do you understand what I'm asking.

[56:25] Yeah. Currently the existing plant.

[56:28] Yeah. Did I hear the weeds a little bit.

[56:30] But the there's a wide range of flows that a plant is has to treat for.

[56:34] It's kind of the flow coming in

[56:35] in the middle of the night in the middle of the winter,

[56:37] which is a lot less of the flow in the middle of summer

[56:40] when we get to the kind of I and I and, and flooding events going on.

[56:42] So you have to push a lot of flow or a little flow through that plan.

[56:46] Right now, on average, the flow of that land is roughly 50%.

[56:50] Its capacity, but it can pick up to 100% during certain times.

[56:54] Turning where I was going on that.

[57:00] Go with the residential.

[57:01] I mean, the new alternative has enough capacity

[57:06] built in for managing it because it's one of the smaller options.

[57:10] We have the ability to even expand it further.

[57:13] Okay. Yeah.

[57:15] This specific alternative, you know, and design, we reevaluate

[57:19] all these flows and the labor hours to, to get the latest and greatest deal.

[57:23] Right.

[57:23] You know, this is data through 2024 that we looked at some of the changes

[57:27] in the next two years.

[57:28] That will be the data

[57:29] that we design and around, along with projecting off 20 years from now.

[57:33] But the intent is to size that land.

[57:35] You know, at least right now, to handle that is 20 years and needs based on what,

[57:40] you know, if there's something super unexpected, that happens and,

[57:45] you know, you know, there's room in, in this alternative

[57:47] specifically to expand the process, add more cells to accommodate,

[57:51] and the discussion really is okay to build that sort of now,

[57:54] in anticipation of that happening,

[57:56] build the structure

[57:57] and then not populate those cells with all the media

[57:59] and the things that go in there that cost money.

[58:02] Or do you wait and build what you need now and then build more structures later

[58:07] that that's really the discussion about expansion with this alternative.

[58:11] And I think you've covered that with us.

[58:12] And is there a major

[58:15] the cost difference for

[58:17] the the price that, that

[58:18] we've been talking about is without that expansion, is that correct,

[58:22] or is that with the expansion that so what we assumed actually,

[58:28] getting into the weeds a little bit too, but it's a ten by five cell system.

[58:33] We worked with vendors that, provide this equipment and to size

[58:37] that for the flow is not rejection is what we showed on on that site plan.

[58:41] And what we had built into some of the costs are building

[58:44] additional cells on that so you could accommodate growth.

[58:47] So, you know, it makes you could do an analysis

[58:51] for the building, make a lot of sense to probably build a structure now

[58:55] and then, just not spend the money to populate that structure than wait

[58:59] till you have that growth to add that later.

[59:01] If it's kind of a design level discussion where we'll have to kind of dig

[59:05] in the weeds on that, to figure out what are the best solutions.

[59:08] But, there's ways, to address it.

[59:12] Thank you. Yep.

[59:14] One quick question.

[59:16] So 142 million.

[59:19] And when I look at your funding opportunities, there's 22

[59:22] million in grants.

[59:24] And that's it

[59:26] pretty much. Right.

[59:28] Just I just want to understand.

[59:29] So then we have to,

[59:33] we going to be taking out a loan

[59:34] for 120 million for this, give or take.

[59:38] That would be the the difference.

[59:40] The other thing would be the, special appropriations bond requests,

[59:44] where you could request additional funding help the argument

[59:49] and being that you have 22 million that you would be eligible

[59:52] for based on the programs that exist today, it's just a matter of position.

[59:57] You for them if you are eligible for that money.

[1:00:01] If it doesn't,

[1:00:03] even with the 22 million, meet your affordability needs.

[1:00:06] If that number is not close to $76 a month, that's 90,

[1:00:11] you would still have excess funds.

[1:00:14] Or I think you have a pretty good argument to request that from the state.

[1:00:19] Through, a bond was to be approved, you have to put out a very good

[1:00:24] narrative of why you deserve that money and not someone else.

[1:00:28] But that's the other tools usually, that communities will use,

[1:00:32] to get finance and get additional funding from.

[1:00:37] Thank you.

[1:00:38] Okay, so that's a pretty good segue into your homework.

[1:00:41] Okay.

[1:00:43] That is

[1:00:43] when we talk about funding and in, in as council person

[1:00:48] had mentioned, there's a pretty significant gap there.

[1:00:52] And when we start talking about, special appropriations

[1:00:55] from the state or federal level or whatever those are,

[1:00:58] those conversations go a lot farther when you folks

[1:01:00] are having those with our elected leaders, with our legislative leaders,

[1:01:04] they do from us.

[1:01:09] But we would certainly give you all the information to speak.

[1:01:12] Okay. Unless you want to go.

[1:01:13] One of the ways Kelsey can teach you all about loading and,

[1:01:18] some issues, whatever.

[1:01:22] Any other questions for right now running total best case

[1:01:25] is, is our rates dropped from $20 a month

[1:01:28] or between a billion variable cost

[1:01:33] to get to our affordability.

[1:01:34] I think the best case is you end up paying around your current affordability.

[1:01:38] You know, the other thing with that

[1:01:39] is that it involves two year and it goes up year over year,

[1:01:42] and the data that they use, changes each year.

[1:01:47] So as your mind goes up, that $76 is going up each year too.

[1:01:50] So by the time you're ready to lock that, you know, financing agreement

[1:01:54] in, you might be playing with those different numbers.

[1:01:57] So another time, a little time is of the essence.

[1:02:01] Well, again, and we appreciate you coming.

[1:02:03] I know we first started talking about this.

[1:02:05] I heard about it when I served on the council three years ago.

[1:02:07] So now we're kind of getting to that next up.

[1:02:09] But it sounds like we've got some more stuff,

[1:02:11] but I think it's good, obviously

[1:02:12] to keep it at the forefront and get more specifics now.

[1:02:15] And we appreciate you coming up and answering questions.

[1:02:18] And it looks like we have some work to do.

[1:02:20] So thanks for having us. Appreciate it.

[1:02:23] Yeah. Thank you.

[1:02:25] Do people need a break you know anybody okay.

[1:02:28] Well we're going to take a five minute break and now probably go into a ten

[1:02:31] minute break.

[1:02:32] But let's be back at 608.

[1:02:42] All right.

[1:02:42] Again we will go to to be now our proposed 2026

[1:02:45] levy and budget of our workshop this evening.

[1:02:49] Yeah. Thanks. Good to see everybody again.

[1:02:52] I don't think this meeting will have a shock.

[1:02:54] That was the last meeting. Yeah, thankfully.

[1:02:57] But we're going to dictate from where we were basically a week ago.

[1:03:01] We're going to talk about a few positions and keep grinding at that, property tax

[1:03:06] levy to get it from 4.99 down to something more palatable for the city council.

[1:03:10] We'll talk about, so changes that.

[1:03:14] We'd like the city council to consider some other information.

[1:03:17] We like to provide you because questions that have arisen about it

[1:03:20] and then briefly, just a few administrative changes

[1:03:23] we made in wrapping up

[1:03:24] with where we are at with the levy at the conclusion of this meeting.

[1:03:28] But with that, I'm going to turn it over to Tony for the PowerPoint.

[1:03:32] All right.

[1:03:33] So kind of starting off where we left,

[1:03:36] last last Monday evening, we got through

[1:03:40] quite a few of these positions and several other requests.

[1:03:43] We got kind of pressed for time at the end.

[1:03:45] So what we're offering doing is just circling back for just a minute

[1:03:50] at the start of this meeting to cover

[1:03:54] two of our current vacant positions.

[1:03:57] So we made some determinations last Monday.

[1:04:00] Those items highlighted in green are items that council and the mayor has

[1:04:05] determined are worthwhile to keep in the existing numbers.

[1:04:09] And then those couple of red highlighted items were items that were

[1:04:13] the consensus was we would take out of the existing numbers.

[1:04:18] Those couple of yellow highlighted items are the ones

[1:04:22] we're just going to quickly circle back to just anymore

[1:04:26] discussion analysis, kind of kind of ran out of time last Monday night.

[1:04:30] So, with that, we'll go to the first position.

[1:04:37] And this is the

[1:04:38] engineering field, tech one, the position that we

[1:04:42] started off on.

[1:04:43] I'll turn it over to engineering Director Regnier here.

[1:04:46] Yeah.

[1:04:47] So a lot of folks out there,

[1:04:50] on the screen, but this is a vacant position.

[1:04:53] We typically, had our field

[1:04:57] techs full, and then it's been a little bit harder the last few years.

[1:05:01] With retirements, there's a bunch of retirements there.

[1:05:04] Five, ten years in the last five, ten years.

[1:05:08] And as part of that, we just, in the last

[1:05:11] five years went from a 7 to 6 staff member department.

[1:05:15] So we lost one of our cat just due to organizational changes.

[1:05:20] Within the last few years.

[1:05:23] And that was a technician position.

[1:05:26] So we're down to three currently.

[1:05:27] One of them is vacant.

[1:05:29] That structure we have with our two field techs does

[1:05:33] I mean, we've been able to make it work and made it work this year.

[1:05:36] This year was a somewhat of a down year.

[1:05:39] And the fact

[1:05:40] that we didn't have a reconstruct project, which we typically do every year.

[1:05:44] So normally when we have our normal slate of projects,

[1:05:48] we utilize all of our field techs.

[1:05:50] And even this year, with just two field techs

[1:05:53] and part of this year we're running with just one.

[1:05:56] Just before we could fill the second vacant one.

[1:06:00] We still have points where we really could

[1:06:04] use more field techs, but we obviously only have the two.

[1:06:08] So whether it's myself, Ryan, or Jared, our project manager,

[1:06:13] our going out on the field and kind of helping plug in that work. So

[1:06:18] without them, we're making it work.

[1:06:19] But it's

[1:06:21] kind of taking away from other work or things like even contractors

[1:06:24] coming in to do, sidewalk replacements as part of utility projects.

[1:06:29] Their contractors generally know what they're doing, but sometimes they don't.

[1:06:33] And if we're not out there to watch them, we get ramps that aren't Ada compliant

[1:06:36] and then we're redoing work or they're redoing work.

[1:06:40] And we don't do that when we have the staff

[1:06:43] that are around to go out and actually verify stuff as needed.

[1:06:47] So things like that.

[1:06:50] But then in general, what does this person do?

[1:06:52] Why do we have currently two why we usually have three or

[1:06:56] we used to have four.

[1:06:57] It's because during the summer months there is all sorts of projects

[1:07:00] between our overlays, our reconstruction projects,

[1:07:03] residents redoing their driveways or utilities.

[1:07:07] Service lines of utility companies

[1:07:11] all over, just down the road here.

[1:07:13] For example, on fifth Street, Excel is doing their big replacement project,

[1:07:17] and we we're involved in all those type of projects and inspections and design

[1:07:22] on the reconstructs and overlays in our alley, reconstruct projects.

[1:07:27] And generally we frequently have or

[1:07:30] bigger non reoccurring projects

[1:07:33] like the Trail project or sidewalk project next year things like that.

[1:07:38] So we're pretty busy during the summer months and the winter months.

[1:07:42] It's slightly slows down when you do a lot of our data processing

[1:07:45] during that time, and that is the best time to do the design.

[1:07:49] That's where this position is, envisioned to help fulfill those needs as well,

[1:07:54] because we'd like to add someone that has the computer experience

[1:07:57] and the field capabilities so that we can keep them fully

[1:08:02] utilized during the slower times in the winter on the design.

[1:08:05] And then when we need them, they can

[1:08:08] grab their boots and go out in the field.

[1:08:10] All this comes at a cost.

[1:08:13] And why do we do it?

[1:08:14] Because we can save a bunch of costs and get a lot better service.

[1:08:18] If we don't do it, we pay consultants to do all that work.

[1:08:23] Design, inspection, whatever happens to be.

[1:08:27] And that comes at paying for their profit because they're a for profit business.

[1:08:32] You're paying for their drive time.

[1:08:33] And typically

[1:08:35] any time someone comes to town, you probably figure in two hours of that day

[1:08:39] just and drive time all park and their prep time and whatnot.

[1:08:43] And they're just not intimately plugged in with the city

[1:08:47] like we are and able to respond and kind of know

[1:08:50] what they're talking about relatively quickly, if not immediately.

[1:08:55] Whereas consultants or someone that you hire,

[1:08:57] you're going to have to get them up to speed.

[1:08:59] They're going to have to kind of learn about it.

[1:09:01] And they're not here unless they make a special trip to deal with it. So

[1:09:06] that's all what we say.

[1:09:07] If we do that, all that work in-house, we're not paying consultants

[1:09:10] and their profit and all that stuff.

[1:09:14] I can give some of the examples.

[1:09:15] I think maybe we listed them up there.

[1:09:17] Oh, we don't listed up there.

[1:09:19] But, for example, our again, our reconstruction projects,

[1:09:23] we've typically been able to do those in-house.

[1:09:25] But we're kind of getting more and more pinched and to be honest as well,

[1:09:30] our that work is being done primarily by Ryan,

[1:09:34] who started as the CAD technician 25 years ago.

[1:09:39] And has moved up and we've never really gotten that position backfilled.

[1:09:43] So he doesn't stay up on the ball with all that he's not doing this day

[1:09:46] in and day out.

[1:09:47] So he's not as efficient as someone that we would like to have in that position.

[1:09:50] He's great and does a good job, but

[1:09:53] it's not really part of his, normal duties.

[1:09:57] He just keeps doing it because we need to.

[1:10:00] So all those things would be alleviated

[1:10:04] with filling our position here.

[1:10:08] Questions for Zach and.

[1:10:13] I guess I just had one

[1:10:14] as far as do we have any data or numbers on how much reviews, consultants or,

[1:10:20] you know, outside work to cover those responsibilities?

[1:10:24] I don't have, those numbers.

[1:10:28] And, I mean, you can generally figure

[1:10:32] like going back to the presentation that we just saw.

[1:10:35] Obviously different project, different scale.

[1:10:37] We're talking about.

[1:10:37] But those soft costs, you know, they added 18.5%.

[1:10:41] That's kind of all the design and inspection are two big parts of that.

[1:10:46] And some other stuff.

[1:10:48] But that's the type of thing where

[1:10:50] our sidewalk project for next year.

[1:10:54] We're paying consultant to do that.

[1:10:55] And there's some aspects where we maybe need to have a consultant do it anyway,

[1:10:58] because there's some traffic analysis at the Tyler Road intersection that are

[1:11:02] a little bit higher level and specialized.

[1:11:04] But the point being, we possibly could do work like that in-house

[1:11:08] and maybe would have saved 100 grand, give or take, on that project

[1:11:12] or same with our street reconstruct projects.

[1:11:17] We'd be looking at possibly even more than that.

[1:11:21] Maybe, 100, 200,000 when we're looking at designing that stuff in-house versus

[1:11:28] if we can't keep up with that anymore and have to hire it out.

[1:11:31] It's typically quite expensive to hire that.

[1:11:35] And the inspection side is about equal

[1:11:40] five to or like usually 6 to 10% of a project cost.

[1:11:46] Do we have,

[1:11:47] do we have a listed in the budget, any amount for

[1:11:51] outside services for this type of thing?

[1:11:56] A lot of times these are projects.

[1:11:59] These are usually related to a project.

[1:12:02] So they become part of the project costs.

[1:12:05] So it's in the CIP is where a lot of these costs will be found.

[1:12:10] Okay.

[1:12:12] Is that why Marshall.

[1:12:13] Like when you look at the levy impact with how it's presented here, like it's

[1:12:17] 33,000, but really cost hundred and 29, that that has a lot to do with.

[1:12:24] We discussed this briefly last Monday too, but

[1:12:27] we wanted to be able to try to give you some data points for reference.

[1:12:31] And what that relates to is if the fund, the the engineering fund,

[1:12:37] for example, does it receive a transfer from the general fund?

[1:12:41] Any transfer from the general fund can,

[1:12:43] for the most part, assume to be from property taxes,

[1:12:46] and they do receive a transfer from the general fund for operating costs.

[1:12:50] And every year they receive 400,000 for, repaving.

[1:12:55] They have a $400,000 repaving program every year.

[1:12:59] So we looked at how

[1:13:00] much revenue does, the fund generate by itself

[1:13:04] and what proportion of that is actually come from the general fund.

[1:13:08] And we'd simply multiply that by the cost of the position

[1:13:12] so we could say, you know, this is the same exact science.

[1:13:16] No, but about 30

[1:13:19] is that number 33,000, 33,000 comes from property tax support.

[1:13:24] So it's a percentage of total income represented by general fund.

[1:13:28] So we came up with a number.

[1:13:32] Well maybe to stick with what we did last Monday.

[1:13:34] Do we are we okay.

[1:13:35] Maybe going down the line real quick and giving any comments on

[1:13:38] what we think about this position or what would you like to do?

[1:13:42] Chris I think that's a great process, but I'm just kind of trying

[1:13:46] to listen to these, descriptions and add a little bit of context

[1:13:49] that might makes more sense.

[1:13:50] So from my experience in the last community I was in, we so

[1:13:55] we did typically 1.2 to 1.5 million and street projects per year.

[1:14:00] All of it was contracted out.

[1:14:02] We had a consulting city engineer and then the engineering firm, typically

[1:14:06] that firm did all the design and construction inspection.

[1:14:11] We were

[1:14:12] trying though, and earlier to try to save some funds,

[1:14:16] on the construction inspection component, could we hire a city employee,

[1:14:20] full time city employee, and alleviate some of the construction

[1:14:23] inspection costs, which generally would have been around?

[1:14:26] If you're talking about that 1.2 million, that's about

[1:14:29] 70,000 of the project was often construction inspection.

[1:14:34] So we utilize an employee.

[1:14:36] That would be

[1:14:37] that that's a large percentage of the wage for construction inspection.

[1:14:41] And then what could we utilize them for during the remainder of the year?

[1:14:45] We never got to that finish line.

[1:14:46] They continued to pay for that construction inspection component.

[1:14:51] But here in Red Wing, the uniqueness is that that position is also, as Zach

[1:14:57] described, is being used for the CAD work and the design work.

[1:15:01] And so there's I mean, it doesn't

[1:15:03] quite correlate because it depends on the projects that we're doing,

[1:15:07] but you could say it potentially saves $150,000 a year

[1:15:11] if those costs aren't contracted out.

[1:15:15] So it's really hard to assume

[1:15:18] because it changes year by year by year, but it's a definite cost savings

[1:15:24] on your overall budget if you utilize it

[1:15:26] to do what you would otherwise be contracting for.

[1:15:31] I'm not showing..oh.

[1:15:33] Go ahead Don.

[1:15:33] Say, how many years is this position been open?

[1:15:39] That's a little bit hard.

[1:15:40] So we had two a year ago,

[1:15:42] and then one of those, went to Lake City and then we hired a back end.

[1:15:46] So we've been able to fill in, but we've just lost a person here.

[1:15:50] There.

[1:15:51] I don't know.

[1:15:54] And some of you recall just because we're in the building there when that was left.

[1:15:58] But there was a longstanding, up until the last 5 to 10 year timeframe

[1:16:03] where the for field techs were like 20 to 30 year, ten year employees.

[1:16:09] And then once they left it

[1:16:11] been filling those

[1:16:12] and 1 or 2 has come and gone are two that we have or a couple that we have

[1:16:18] have been here now for several years and,

[1:16:21] have had some longevity with us.

[1:16:26] And my question was just,

[1:16:28] I mean, are there specific projects for 2026 that we really do feel

[1:16:32] and I know, again, that we would use this type of work that we know for

[1:16:35] sure is going to be needed, and we would have a cost savings right away.

[1:16:39] Yeah.

[1:16:40] So, I mean, anticipating the construction phase of the sidewalk

[1:16:45] project or service drive project that will be coming back here in a little bit.

[1:16:51] So right there we would use inspections.

[1:16:53] We anticipate the 2026 Street reconstruction project,

[1:16:58] which we're trying to get through design right now.

[1:17:00] Again, we could be a little bit more efficient and have that process.

[1:17:06] Would we be helping there, helping in the inspection side of that,

[1:17:10] finishing up inspections on our trail project and our normal list?

[1:17:14] The smaller things that don't add up to the big dollars

[1:17:17] are when we get the calls every week of someone replacing their driveway

[1:17:21] or building a new garage, and we're the ones that go out and

[1:17:25] provide recommendations, or

[1:17:27] at least enforce our codes and make sure everything is done right.

[1:17:30] So they're not tearing it all and redoing it and all the little things that we do.

[1:17:36] Laying out, striping up on Memorial Park,

[1:17:38] to help the public work staff and,

[1:17:41] and some of the little stuff too, that we don't even have a dollar amount

[1:17:45] for it, do respond to quite a few community issues.

[1:17:50] Yeah.

[1:17:52] Ron, do you mind if I have you go on that side to start with?

[1:17:56] Any thoughts you have?

[1:17:59] Yeah.

[1:18:00] I think I'm a no on this.

[1:18:02] I think, you know, when you're looking at different projects and things

[1:18:05] like that, you know, the demand is there when that project's there.

[1:18:08] If the project's not there, there's not necessarily a demand.

[1:18:11] And you may or may not be

[1:18:13] using that person's time

[1:18:16] efficiently, effectively.

[1:18:21] Don, you want to go next?

[1:18:24] Defer.

[1:18:27] I'm going to probably be very hesitant also on this and say no.

[1:18:30] At this point,

[1:18:30] I would feel much more comfortable if I had like the specific numbers of

[1:18:35] of what we're looking at in front of me, of like me,

[1:18:38] you know, so I'd encourage you, like for this coming year,

[1:18:41] if you can keep track again of like how we can use that.

[1:18:44] Like I think it could justify me supporting it for 2027.

[1:18:48] But at this point I'd say no.

[1:18:53] I mean, yes, I do think just maybe not

[1:18:56] the hard numbers you're looking for, but, we have a big project coming up.

[1:19:01] We have the sidewalk project coming up.

[1:19:04] We still have the,

[1:19:06] path project that's not completed to,

[1:19:10] I support this.

[1:19:12] When I,

[1:19:14] walked through the department, it was, intact, with Zach

[1:19:18] and just having two people there doing this work, it's burdensome.

[1:19:23] And so I support this.

[1:19:29] I'm going to ask a question

[1:19:31] about this position.

[1:19:33] Is it going to affect getting the street side,

[1:19:37] the sidewalk down on our service drive and,

[1:19:41] other projects we have this next year?

[1:19:44] I guess a

[1:19:47] ultimately everything will get done.

[1:19:50] It's just whether the cup, whether we pay extra for consultants or not.

[1:19:56] So you would use consultancies to get it done.

[1:20:00] You see, it kind of get pushed back via, for example, Bolton

[1:20:04] Menk, the firm that did this study is doing the North Service drive sidewalk.

[1:20:08] So if we need assistance

[1:20:11] they would

[1:20:11] because they did the design they would provide a

[1:20:14] inspections if we need any.

[1:20:17] We've made yes easier.

[1:20:18] If it would be like well it's going to make it way more difficult.

[1:20:21] But I still support the project, the position because of the need

[1:20:26] within the department and knowing the cost of consultants.

[1:20:31] Substantially more than having your own in-house.

[1:20:34] It's something like this.

[1:20:39] In keeping with what I heard

[1:20:42] Beth say and what I heard Kim say, I would.

[1:20:44] I also support the project.

[1:20:46] And when I'm thinking about

[1:20:49] why specifically, in addition to the big projects,

[1:20:53] the day to day work, when I see lead CAD efforts and assist with field work,

[1:20:58] just having another person there to help in, feel and be creative and help

[1:21:02] with like that extra design piece that you have

[1:21:07] and consulting fees.

[1:21:09] They're so blasted expensive.

[1:21:11] So I do support this position.

[1:21:14] Will we utilize

[1:21:15] any outside consultants if this position is filled?

[1:21:20] Yeah.

[1:21:20] So we always get every depending on the project.

[1:21:24] I mean there always are going to be projects

[1:21:26] that require outside consultants because some things have specialty things.

[1:21:30] Most of our projects we're able to do in-house.

[1:21:32] But everyone smile.

[1:21:33] If we get into a big intersection, we may need a traffic engineer

[1:21:37] because they do that and we want to make sure

[1:21:40] our intersection is safe or whatever the case is.

[1:21:44] That's maybe one of the bigger ones, but not typically.

[1:21:47] Typically, we do stuff in-house and we don't know

[1:21:51] how much we spent on consultants that this position would handle.

[1:21:55] Correct.

[1:21:56] And not specifically tallied up. No.

[1:22:02] Time.

[1:22:03] Do you have any other comments that you would like to?

[1:22:05] Okay.

[1:22:06] Well, I mean, I was I was a know on Monday night on this particular, position.

[1:22:12] I mean, I'm under the impression unless I'm thinking of a different position.

[1:22:16] Even back when, Jay was here, we had, we had a position.

[1:22:21] Is it the same one?

[1:22:24] Just the same type of position?

[1:22:27] Yes. So we couldn't fill.

[1:22:30] I mean, we've

[1:22:31] since the day I've been on this council haven't been able to fill that position.

[1:22:34] So what are the odds that might have been the one that was eliminated when we went,

[1:22:39] when they went from 4 to 3 just in the last five years,

[1:22:42] one staff position was eliminated from the org chart.

[1:22:45] I'm assuming your time with that.

[1:22:47] I wasn't here during that.

[1:22:48] So I think it's it was more technical, like engineering or engineering

[1:22:52] directly related engineering.

[1:22:54] Engineering assistant one of those two.

[1:22:56] Oh yeah.

[1:22:57] Might even been either assistant city engineer position correctly.

[1:23:01] That's correct.

[1:23:02] I'm thinking it.

[1:23:03] If so. Correct. Okay.

[1:23:06] In that case, I support it.

[1:23:10] Any other questions or comments on that position?

[1:23:12] Then I think we'll move on to

[1:23:16] CIP manager then discussion

[1:23:18] next FTE position.

[1:23:22] Yeah.

[1:23:23] So I'll try to be brief for my remarks

[1:23:25] so we can get straight to questions or comments and anything else.

[1:23:28] Or to make sure we clarify a few things.

[1:23:33] This, this reclassification that we're proposing,

[1:23:37] it results from a vacancy of the current board chart.

[1:23:40] It is not a request for a new position.

[1:23:44] I just wanted to clarify that off the bat.

[1:23:47] Another point.

[1:23:50] I just wanted to kind of clarify and give a little explanation is,

[1:23:55] the recent new hire that just started, a couple of weeks ago.

[1:24:01] And he came back for his second pay period.

[1:24:04] So, you know, good sign.

[1:24:07] So that position

[1:24:10] was also also resulted

[1:24:13] from filling a vacancy that had existed that was a separate position.

[1:24:17] It was filling a vacant position that had sat vacant for, a little over a year.

[1:24:27] In a way,

[1:24:27] that position is a little unrelated to this, only because that position

[1:24:32] is designed to assist with some of those annual

[1:24:36] large lists, like the audit process, the budget process,

[1:24:41] and then internal and external

[1:24:44] financial reporting.

[1:24:49] As well as provide some,

[1:24:53] backup capabilities in our important functions, you know, being able

[1:24:57] to train and provide and have a backup for a payroll function or

[1:25:03] provide and train to have a backup for utility billing function.

[1:25:08] So that position with the person who we were able to

[1:25:12] hire is kind of designed for a little bit different.

[1:25:17] So it's not completely unrelated to this, because what we are talking about

[1:25:20] overall is overall staffing capacity.

[1:25:24] But I just wanted to point that out.

[1:25:28] What we're proposing

[1:25:30] is in line with exactly what council said

[1:25:35] they valued at the last annual workshop, which was

[1:25:40] when a vacancy comes due.

[1:25:44] Do a little thoughtful analysis

[1:25:46] on what your needs are.

[1:25:50] And that's what we're doing here.

[1:25:51] We recognize that it may be difficult to find a CIP manager

[1:25:56] as fit the role as it previously was filled,

[1:25:59] and in the exact function that it previously provided.

[1:26:03] However,

[1:26:05] that resource still provides

[1:26:08] function and tremendous value to the city.

[1:26:11] And so what we're proposing is offering and a lower level accountant position

[1:26:16] to fill and be able to continue to assist

[1:26:19] the other departments citywide.

[1:26:23] In doing things like capital improvement,

[1:26:27] project analysis, helping manage grants.

[1:26:31] Grants aren't always just something that we go out

[1:26:34] and seek the funding and secure it.

[1:26:37] There's a lot of work on the back end to a report

[1:26:41] to verify, managing grants and their compliance.

[1:26:47] And I had some.

[1:26:49] And just going from what you heard before this meeting to that multiyear process

[1:26:54] to secure bond funds, that's a really heavy lift,

[1:26:58] even for a consultant, because that generally entails meeting

[1:27:01] with every single member of the House and Senate Capital Investment Committee.

[1:27:06] That means going through there

[1:27:08] to try to get on their calendar when it works for them.

[1:27:11] Send invites, a call.

[1:27:14] Those invites out to you folks to come, to come up to the Capitol with us to have

[1:27:20] those pressing, needed conversations, like trying to secure those grant funds

[1:27:24] for these bigger capital projects

[1:27:26] and the multiyear, project time frame.

[1:27:30] Is it it's not just going to affect public works.

[1:27:33] Part of it is the whole financial planning and and work around

[1:27:37] that and trying to secure that funding, which takes quite a bit of effort.

[1:27:41] We are very familiar with multiyear, wait times to secure funding,

[1:27:45] whether that be for the surge link road rail grade separation project

[1:27:51] for, River Renaissance things of those nature.

[1:27:54] It takes a lot of concerted time, energy and effort to see those through.

[1:27:59] But at the end of the day, they've been extremely huge dividends to the community.

[1:28:07] Yeah.

[1:28:07] And then lastly,

[1:28:12] Lastly, I just want to also mention or offer up what this position will provide.

[1:28:17] And the department is, it's the opportunity

[1:28:23] and the resource to be able to tackle some

[1:28:26] much needed improvements.

[1:28:31] As you all are aware,

[1:28:32] we had to make a payment processing

[1:28:36] or what would you call it, a platform transition.

[1:28:40] We were on PSN, we are now on express bill pay.

[1:28:44] I mean, projects like that.

[1:28:46] That was a vital project that was very important to our city staff,

[1:28:50] our cashiers, to remain efficient and being able

[1:28:54] to account for transactions.

[1:28:58] You know, projects like that where we're transitioning

[1:29:01] or making improvements for efficiency,

[1:29:04] those are a heavy lift, and those are often going to be

[1:29:07] things that originate and are managed through finance,

[1:29:11] and places a burden on the existing finance staff.

[1:29:14] So, being able to have a resource available to us to be able

[1:29:20] to tackle some of those efficiency improvements that are on the horizon,

[1:29:25] that remains important to us. So,

[1:29:30] with that, I hope that table is pretty clear.

[1:29:34] And what we're trying to accomplish.

[1:29:35] We took the, I guess really

[1:29:39] to sum it up, you would have a couple of options.

[1:29:42] What staff is recommending is the elimination of the CIP manager role

[1:29:48] and then replacing it with a lower level accounting role

[1:29:52] and realizing some savings of reduced over time from the existing budget.

[1:29:57] And the last plug I'll make is really about something Tony

[1:29:59] and I talk about probably too frequently, because we're not comfortable with it.

[1:30:03] And ultimately it's it's the council's responsibility.

[1:30:07] It's really about the backup for mission

[1:30:10] critical, processes.

[1:30:13] And I think of those often as utility billing and payroll

[1:30:17] and having capacity so that if something happened to one of those people

[1:30:21] or God forbid,

[1:30:22] they just wanted to go to their own kids wedding,

[1:30:23] but it happened to be during the payroll week, that

[1:30:26] they have somebody else within the department

[1:30:31] that can perform those functions we lack right now

[1:30:34] adequate, cross-training,

[1:30:37] adequate duplication, adequate ability.

[1:30:40] If something were to happen, one of our key people

[1:30:43] doing one of those processes, it's something we're highly uncomfortable with.

[1:30:46] But like I said, at the end of the day, that's a it's

[1:30:49] a council could live with that risk or assume that risk.

[1:30:52] We defer that decision to folks.

[1:31:00] Any questions from Marshall until mayor did,

[1:31:05] do we have cross-training in our financial departments

[1:31:11] when the people how many people are we've been able to do payroll?

[1:31:15] Sure.

[1:31:16] There's nobody that can back.

[1:31:17] We have nobody that backs up payroll. Correct.

[1:31:20] That's why we've been short people for a couple of years running.

[1:31:25] We just fill that's the account position.

[1:31:27] But as Tony was explaining, that accountants position

[1:31:30] is almost fully consumed between audit budget.

[1:31:32] It's a never ending process goes on all year.

[1:31:35] Answer questions from department heads, you know, help with the budget process.

[1:31:39] It's that's basically a full time job.

[1:31:41] What we're what we're this accountant that we're talking about here

[1:31:44] instead of a CIP manager is really that relief valve.

[1:31:48] It's to help accommodate succession plan and ensure we have the capacity

[1:31:53] and the people to have the time to actually learn that other system

[1:31:57] and understand it thoroughly.

[1:31:59] Right now, if we just had, for example, our new accountant, his name is Bradley

[1:32:04] Johnson, he's going to do great, but he's not going to have

[1:32:08] what his role will not, involve being backup

[1:32:13] for either for some of these mission critical, processing positions.

[1:32:19] He just simply he will not have the time.

[1:32:21] So we only have one person that can do payroll.

[1:32:25] That's correct.

[1:32:25] What if they resign tomorrow?

[1:32:27] What do we do now? What?

[1:32:28] We are backup. Emergency plan

[1:32:32] is, this all goes back to succession planning.

[1:32:34] That's why I wanted to mention it.

[1:32:37] Our backup emergency plan is probably Tony.

[1:32:39] And I don't want you sitting at computer me on the phone with our software vendor

[1:32:44] to help process and get through the process

[1:32:48] and try to get the payroll out.

[1:32:50] Is this a is this a new process?

[1:32:53] I mean, did we have someone else that could

[1:32:55] that was cross-trained and they had left us?

[1:32:58] Correct.

[1:32:58] The former CIP manager,

[1:33:01] was actually cross-trained,

[1:33:05] and that person was only here for about a year.

[1:33:07] Correct?

[1:33:09] Yeah. Give or take. Yeah. You're right.

[1:33:10] Who did that before?

[1:33:11] Who is the backup before?

[1:33:13] I'm just. I find it.

[1:33:15] It's concerning that we only have one person that can do payroll.

[1:33:19] We have the same concern.

[1:33:25] I'm done.

[1:33:25] Any other questions for Tony? Sorry.

[1:33:28] Well, and just just to clarify that point,

[1:33:32] I don't think what we're proposing necessarily would be to provide

[1:33:36] we're not asking above and beyond to have like two payroll experts

[1:33:39] and be above and beyond.

[1:33:40] But to Marshall's point, if we lost that payroll person,

[1:33:44] that critical payroll person, it would pull likely myself and likely

[1:33:50] another resource away from our other duties.

[1:33:54] And all those other duties are currently

[1:33:58] held to capacity more or less.

[1:34:01] Okay, so we have I mean, we have the ability

[1:34:04] to adapt and prioritize and triage these things,

[1:34:08] but we don't really have anyone that can step in,

[1:34:12] just step in.

[1:34:12] Not not directly. No.

[1:34:14] All right.

[1:34:15] No, I mean, it would be a strain on in our other areas, we'd be able to adapt.

[1:34:20] But you know, it would be it would be a struggle in some of our other areas.

[1:34:25] Okay. Understood. Thank you.

[1:34:28] Vicki.

[1:34:28] Joe, for a couple of,

[1:34:31] clarifying questions then,

[1:34:34] if we're talking about restructuring the position in the finance department

[1:34:38] and the CIP manager position going away, and you were talking about setting up,

[1:34:43] the long range planning for bringing money into the city

[1:34:48] and doing the meetings and doing all of that.

[1:34:51] I'm assuming that

[1:34:53] piece of that job then is gone.

[1:34:56] You're talking about hiring an accountant who isn't a specialist in networking

[1:35:02] and getting and long range planning and grant

[1:35:04] writing and grant seeking, all of that kind of stuff.

[1:35:08] Am I correct in that assumption?

[1:35:10] Let me clarify.

[1:35:11] So to some extent there's less of that.

[1:35:14] But that's just a function of the city currently is focusing on a couple.

[1:35:19] One of the the major project is the one we just heard about earlier tonight.

[1:35:23] We are not pursuing the number

[1:35:26] or level of priorities that we have pursued in the past.

[1:35:30] So before we'd have any number related to the River Renaissance

[1:35:34] Revitalization project, trails, riverfront

[1:35:37] and those aren't, deemed by this council council's process.

[1:35:42] We're not pushing, those who try to move those forward.

[1:35:45] So there's not the volume that helps.

[1:35:48] So there will be some capacity in this position where they be an expert.

[1:35:52] Perhaps not to the extent that Ron

[1:35:56] was, but we have experience, too,

[1:35:59] or we're, you know, available and would be happy to assist.

[1:36:03] We want to make sure whoever this person is,

[1:36:05] they're successful in the organization as a whole is successful.

[1:36:08] So I look at as how much volume what's the volume?

[1:36:11] And because the volume has been turned down a little bit, we don't do

[1:36:15] we need somebody 100% of the time to focus

[1:36:18] like rounded on those specific projects?

[1:36:22] Perhaps not.

[1:36:23] That was our thought process when we were discussing this and,

[1:36:26] looking at how we could reorganize some of the department to, to make sure

[1:36:30] that kind of all of the current needs were met and we came up with this

[1:36:34] would be a better fit this account than a CIP manager at this time.

[1:36:43] That's it for now, Ron.

[1:36:45] So do we have financial people in like the HRA?

[1:36:49] I know we have in the HRA to support have them.

[1:36:52] I mean, do we need to be compartmentalized

[1:36:56] between those groups or could there there be some cross training

[1:37:01] amongst all the finance people so you can get some some backups?

[1:37:04] Yeah.

[1:37:05] So the organization for as long as I've been here

[1:37:09] 25 years plus the HRA has always had

[1:37:14] the has always been very independent.

[1:37:16] I talked to their finance people

[1:37:19] 2 or 3 times a year, and it's usually about, hey, the levy's coming up.

[1:37:23] I need you to provide this information.

[1:37:25] The port used to have its own finance

[1:37:28] department, the shell, and used to have its own finance department.

[1:37:31] And those have been merged into the city's

[1:37:34] finance department, but specifically to the HRA.

[1:37:38] They still stand as an outlier.

[1:37:40] And, Chris is probably better verse on why

[1:37:45] that is because of the different charters or whatever it may be.

[1:37:49] I'm not entirely sure, but all I can say is they have historically

[1:37:52] and always been that that way in their own finance.

[1:37:56] People are person. We've been.

[1:38:02] Specifically to Kyle,

[1:38:03] he's very good finance mind and has a lot of good ideas.

[1:38:06] But I don't think he's going to help us in backing up payroll

[1:38:09] unless it is.

[1:38:13] Do you mind, for the sake of time again, if I.

[1:38:15] Mayor, do you mind if I start on that side?

[1:38:18] Any thoughts on this position?

[1:38:19] I know you just ate a chocolate, so I'm sorry.

[1:38:22] No, that's fine, I.

[1:38:24] I can go either way on this.

[1:38:25] I, I'm concerned that we really don't have a cross-training program for backup.

[1:38:32] I mean, in my company, we have several people that can do it

[1:38:34] because you cannot miss payroll. So.

[1:38:39] And I'd like to thank, Miss Parel because I get,

[1:38:42] you can sign up on Minnesota, state Minnesota for any kind of grants.

[1:38:48] And I saw a grant come through that might help our water department.

[1:38:50] She says I'm on it.

[1:38:51] They're going to use it for, fluoride pump of some sort.

[1:38:55] But thank you.

[1:38:56] And I think that's what our department should also do.

[1:38:58] I mean, that be proactive.

[1:39:03] Thank you know.

[1:39:07] If you think that they

[1:39:10] the demand is not high for the CIP manager,

[1:39:14] and there's staff who are cross-trained enough

[1:39:18] to be able to pick up those duties,

[1:39:21] and you really do need the support financially.

[1:39:24] So to transition this from one position to the other, I would support that

[1:39:29] because I really think it's important that that staff

[1:39:33] are capable of doing a number of different things

[1:39:37] and filling in those gaps,

[1:39:38] because there's nothing worse than having that position be full and then

[1:39:42] I think the word you used was triage, and that's a medical term

[1:39:46] that I don't think that the city should be employing.

[1:39:54] A support option be,

[1:39:58] I'd also like a follow up,

[1:39:59] update after this person is hired, when the cross training is completed.

[1:40:13] I'm on the fence, but I'll support B.

[1:40:18] With the same caveat.

[1:40:21] It'll be the first thing they're going to be introduced to.

[1:40:24] So after report.

[1:40:26] And I'm still at the point I mean I've requested to look at different

[1:40:29] finance departments.

[1:40:30] We talked about this up known still haven't gotten the information

[1:40:32] I asked about comparing other like size cities compared to after.

[1:40:36] So at this point I just have to say no, I want to help.

[1:40:40] I want us to be cross-trained, but I just can't justify it at this time,

[1:40:43] especially with the information that requested and haven't received

[1:40:47] yet. So.

[1:40:50] I, I feel the same way.

[1:40:52] And,

[1:40:55] you know, the question I have is, are we, it would be nice

[1:40:59] to compare us to maybe some other cities and how their finance departments work.

[1:41:03] And are we using all of the up to date and most modern software that we can?

[1:41:09] With the AI revolution that's going on,

[1:41:13] there might be ways to, to make this, this whole process simpler.

[1:41:17] I don't know, I'm not a not an accountant, but,

[1:41:21] I think I would rather research that,

[1:41:25] those options before we, we obligate ourselves at this point.

[1:41:31] You know, if we come in at

[1:41:32] 2.9 at the end, I would maybe consider going back and changing that.

[1:41:37] But, at this point, we still need to find savings in our, in our budgeting here.

[1:41:43] So I'm going to say no at this time.

[1:41:47] I'm in the same mind as Janie, and I'm.

[1:41:53] All right,

[1:41:53] any thing else on FTE is that we need to cover.

[1:41:59] And I'll move us on.

[1:42:00] I didn't know Marshall or Chris or Tony.

[1:42:03] If you want to go right into these proposals for consideration.

[1:42:06] I know that paid family leave is,

[1:42:08] I don't know how you want to organize it, so I'll hand it back over to you guys.

[1:42:11] What you want to do?

[1:42:12] Well, I think we're okay again, just continuing on right in order.

[1:42:16] So, first for consideration

[1:42:19] is a few items, proposals for consideration for council to make.

[1:42:24] They're all listed there.

[1:42:27] I hope they're straightforward.

[1:42:28] Starting with the police department has an e-bike in the CIP.

[1:42:33] What we're proposing is utilizing a transfer from the Green Fund.

[1:42:38] This would be a qualifying expense.

[1:42:40] So we could use a transfer for that 4900.

[1:42:44] The second one there is the council contingency

[1:42:48] that we've discussed at previous workshops.

[1:42:51] We'd be recommending,

[1:42:54] lowering that from the preliminary amount of 250,000 to get it back

[1:42:59] down to the $200,000 amount, which it is in 2025.

[1:43:04] So same amount,

[1:43:06] on park side,

[1:43:09] we could consider postponing,

[1:43:12] invasive weed control measures on

[1:43:15] I think it's specific to Barn Bluff area.

[1:43:19] That would be $10,000 of savings.

[1:43:22] And then finally on this page, Chief

[1:43:26] Warner has gone through quite a bit of research.

[1:43:30] He had in the original preliminary levy,

[1:43:33] a $50,000 very professionally done.

[1:43:37] It's a standards of coverage study.

[1:43:40] And he is proposing finding some savings by doing more of an in-house option.

[1:43:46] That would result in about $35,000 of savings from preliminary budget.

[1:43:53] So our

[1:43:53] question to the city council is really,

[1:43:57] do you want us to move forward with these does

[1:44:00] is there any hesitation on the council's part or.

[1:44:05] Kim, do you want to

[1:44:06] I do have a question about the Green Fund.

[1:44:09] How much do we currently have in there?

[1:44:12] You know, I wrote it down.

[1:44:13] I forgot to bring it with me, but I want to say it was.

[1:44:17] You better look it up.

[1:44:18] Yeah, I think I'll look it up, but it's it's a fairly substantial amount.

[1:44:24] It's in the $100,000 range.

[1:44:26] And how much are we putting into it each year?

[1:44:29] Like this year zero.

[1:44:31] The next year zero. It has to go. So it's zeroed out.

[1:44:33] Yeah. It hasn't gone to for a couple of years.

[1:44:38] Well they look that up.

[1:44:39] Any other questions or comments on these extra proposals for consideration.

[1:44:45] Yeah okay.

[1:44:45] Multitasking guys if I have the camera okay.

[1:44:48] The key

[1:44:49] to I have a question on the contingency if,

[1:44:52] if we keep it exactly the same this year to next year.

[1:44:55] How does that consider how does that consider inflation?

[1:45:00] It doesn't

[1:45:03] I don't think of it as an inflationary,

[1:45:06] issue.

[1:45:07] What we do is we looked at the trends.

[1:45:09] So we've looked at the trends.

[1:45:10] There's been a few years where are the past ten

[1:45:13] where we actually use and I think we provided

[1:45:15] some of this earlier in the budget process.

[1:45:17] But we actually use the $500,000 that we used to set up for contingency.

[1:45:22] But those were always very specific to certain

[1:45:26] events, primarily related to weather and snow.

[1:45:29] And then, crime,

[1:45:33] criminal asset,

[1:45:34] resulted in a lot of extra overtime.

[1:45:37] We haven't had those.

[1:45:38] So over the last, you know, 4 or 5 years, we've used the contingency anywhere

[1:45:42] between 200 and 400,000 and haven't used the entirety of it this year.

[1:45:48] We haven't used the entirety of the 200,000.

[1:45:50] So we reconsider and we just on based on

[1:45:54] trends in the 200,000 has been sufficient the last few years.

[1:45:58] Optimistically, no big snowstorms, no,

[1:46:03] extraordinary criminal activity.

[1:46:06] At this point, we think it would suffice.

[1:46:08] There's always a conversation you recall about fund balance.

[1:46:11] Even if we, utilize the all the contingency,

[1:46:16] the city council still can use

[1:46:19] some of that fund balance to address any kind of emergency situation.

[1:46:22] Two thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it.

[1:46:26] To circle back to the Green Fund.

[1:46:27] The Green Fund has $115,000 available.

[1:46:31] And as Marshall mentioned, we have no money going in there for next year.

[1:46:36] I'm fine.

[1:46:37] No money going in there.

[1:46:39] I think that's a great use of it.

[1:46:41] Is for the e-bike.

[1:46:43] I don't remember all the details of what it can be used for.

[1:46:47] But can it be

[1:46:49] used for the prescribed burns to,

[1:46:53] to fight the invasive plants?

[1:46:56] It was

[1:46:57] I mean, it was it was initially set up for energy conservation

[1:47:02] and really looking at, electric vehicles,

[1:47:06] you might recall talking about fire trucks and things of that nature.

[1:47:09] But the council has full discretion over how those funds are spent.

[1:47:14] But that was essentially what it was established for.

[1:47:18] I just hate to see us get behind on the invasive species,

[1:47:22] because it it's pretty, pretty prevalent around our city.

[1:47:26] If you look and see green in the woods right now, it's invasive because.

[1:47:30] And the thought on that was, there are there were some,

[1:47:36] looking for the word here,Shawn.

[1:47:38] Loose, loose commitments to help maintain and keep that.

[1:47:43] They just haven't materialized yet.

[1:47:45] So we're optimistic if we give it another year that might help

[1:47:49] produce those funds to help offset city costs for invasive control.

[1:47:52] Okay, mayor, at some point, not now, but could you just send me, what?

[1:47:58] We can use the funds for sure.

[1:48:01] January is fine.

[1:48:02] I you know, it could you could you said that out to the whole council.

[1:48:08] In past years, we've had discussions about eliminating that green fund

[1:48:11] and is transferring it to the general fund.

[1:48:17] Is there any more consideration to that?

[1:48:21] We weren't making any budget decisions on that.

[1:48:24] But that, again, is a council.

[1:48:28] It's a it's a year program.

[1:48:30] The council has full discretion over what they want to do with it.

[1:48:36] I do like the idea

[1:48:37] of if we can see if we can use it for the invasive bird,

[1:48:41] but if it if there's a possibility of getting Grant the grant or whatever,

[1:48:45] we should do that before we pull it from there.

[1:48:48] But if we don't get it in the, and we should do these burns because

[1:48:55] you get behind on it and it's more expensive.

[1:48:58] Yeah.

[1:48:58] So and I will note that because our, the thought behind

[1:49:03] it was let's just give it a year, see if those grants will materialize.

[1:49:06] If they don't we will definitely be bringing it up again.

[1:49:09] Next year.

[1:49:12] Moving us on.

[1:49:13] Any more thoughts on these considerations?

[1:49:14] Are we all okay and clear direction on that for you guys? Yes.

[1:49:18] Okay.

[1:49:20] Let's move on to the

[1:49:20] paid family and medical leave options.

[1:49:24] All right.

[1:49:24] With that, we had our, Minnesota paid family leave.

[1:49:27] Hopefully everybody knows what it is at this point.

[1:49:31] If you don't, please

[1:49:33] clarify it.

[1:49:34] But what we are looking to do

[1:49:37] is get firm concrete, you know, 100%.

[1:49:41] What are we?

[1:49:41] What way is the council deciding for us to go?

[1:49:44] As you all know from the benefit workshop in October,

[1:49:49] there's an up private option.

[1:49:51] The MetLife option?

[1:49:56] You know, we feel the advantage to that

[1:49:58] would not just be in, slight

[1:50:03] savings in rate,

[1:50:05] but in the administrative ease of the program.

[1:50:08] It's it's likely to be that, you know, MetLife has has run this

[1:50:12] program and other states

[1:50:14] likely just going to be

[1:50:15] that much more administratively easy and, and user friendly.

[1:50:19] Frankly,

[1:50:21] the MetLife option,

[1:50:24] do you have budgeted right now?

[1:50:26] So as you see on there, the top line currently in the budget is oh,

[1:50:32] so the other part of this law is

[1:50:34] employers are required to cover half of the cost.

[1:50:39] And that's the amount that I have in the current budget.

[1:50:43] We use the state rate at the time.

[1:50:45] So the .88 percent, half of that is the 0.44

[1:50:49] that's currently in the budget.

[1:50:52] It is any employer's option to cover more than half,

[1:50:57] but it is a requirement to cover at least half.

[1:51:01] So we laid out just a couple other ranges there.

[1:51:04] It's likely I don't know if it's official,

[1:51:08] but it's likely we're going with the MetLife option.

[1:51:12] So we have on there, if we did

[1:51:16] the employer, half of the MetLife rate,

[1:51:19] three

[1:51:20] quarters of the MetLife rate, fully funding the MetLife rate.

[1:51:23] I mean, it's really, a decision we'd like

[1:51:28] to have determined here tonight just so we can tie up those loose strings.

[1:51:31] It doesn't have drastic necessarily budgetary changes,

[1:51:35] but also administratively.

[1:51:38] I think we need to just make that decision because there are some deadlines

[1:51:42] coming up.

[1:51:42] To be able to choose which option work.

[1:51:46] And half of the MetLife rate, which you're saying

[1:51:49] is easier administratively to conduct and provide.

[1:51:54] Yeah, that's a that's our belief.

[1:51:55] This program already exists in 14 other states.

[1:52:01] And MetLife has administered this program in other states.

[1:52:05] It's hard to anticipate a new program rolling out in this in a state

[1:52:10] and knowing just how well the rollout is going to actually occur.

[1:52:14] So, I mean, there's there's some quantifiable data that MetLife

[1:52:19] already knows what this looks like, and it's just going to be

[1:52:23] that much easier should any of our employees participate.

[1:52:26] So I mean, that's a consideration that, you know,

[1:52:29] given it's a new state program, we've all seen how the, rolled out.

[1:52:33] So we believe that, you know,

[1:52:35] it would be friendly and more friendlier administratively.

[1:52:38] And again, for those end users working with MetLife that just, you know,

[1:52:42] they specialize in this, this is what they do.

[1:52:46] Any concerns with that recommendation.

[1:52:48] But did you have a comment.

[1:52:49] Yeah I have two questions.

[1:52:51] One, so we have to provide it to the employees.

[1:52:55] Have to take it.

[1:52:56] Yes okay.

[1:52:57] Police are required. There.

[1:53:00] Yeah. There is no opt out.

[1:53:02] Then can I ask a second of workers.

[1:53:04] So if if I'm an employee and I how much if

[1:53:09] how much is it going to cost me if as a council person, I vote for half

[1:53:13] the MetLife rate and I'm paying half as an employee versus a fully funded,

[1:53:19] it would cost the same amount for the employee

[1:53:21] as it would cost for the employer under that case,

[1:53:24] because you're basically splitting the rate.

[1:53:27] So if you've the so it's going to cost them

[1:53:30] $77,000 in collectively the whole city, the whole city.

[1:53:34] But I want to know on my paycheck okay.

[1:53:37] Let's deploy.

[1:53:38] It would be it would be

[1:53:42] the rate would be 0.0042 times what your wages are.

[1:53:49] So it's .004 to the four one in this case.

[1:53:53] Excuse me. Okay.

[1:53:54] Whatever your wage you make.

[1:53:57] Okay. And that's annually.

[1:54:00] Yes. Annually.

[1:54:01] They break it down by pay period. It's probably.

[1:54:04] Yeah. Yeah.

[1:54:04] It's a it's just like any other payroll tax, a couple bucks a project probably.

[1:54:09] Okay. Thank you.

[1:54:10] Can I just, having gone through this and done a lot of research on it

[1:54:16] and how to save money and my own organization,

[1:54:19] I support the move in that life rather than the state.

[1:54:23] All of them that I looked at were better administered

[1:54:26] than what I believe the state will roll out.

[1:54:29] And,

[1:54:33] you know, I, I'll say I, I support that

[1:54:37] for, paying the half

[1:54:39] and having the employer pay the other half.

[1:54:44] I think we got good consensus on that.

[1:54:46] I really want to.

[1:54:47] I'm have concerns or, you know, half my life, I think you do have to do have. Okay.

[1:54:52] Anything

[1:54:54] point I say yes at this point.

[1:54:57] Okay.

[1:54:58] As the conversation continues, I might have something else to add.

[1:55:02] Okay. Thank you.

[1:55:04] I can move on to some administrative changes,

[1:55:07] and I would just like to at least say that we're at 704.

[1:55:10] So if we do our and I get over here by eight, not that we don't all are having

[1:55:13] a great time, but just to be cognizant of the time.

[1:55:18] I don't know anywhere else why else to put it.

[1:55:21] We appreciate that.

[1:55:24] So administratively we've already entered some changes.

[1:55:27] Please has a few line items.

[1:55:31] We we were able to talk to Nick and realize a couple revenue lines

[1:55:36] that we could raise.

[1:55:37] So we had charted the preliminary in recoverable over time.

[1:55:41] So we corrected that by 6400.

[1:55:44] We realized there was some parking fines and forfeits

[1:55:48] with our increased enforcement activity that we could add $9,000 in revenue.

[1:55:53] Yeah. Red line red items on here, by the way.

[1:55:56] Reduce the levy. Green items, increase the levy.

[1:56:01] There were three items that we did increase.

[1:56:04] Police uniforms.

[1:56:05] These are for the administrative staff.

[1:56:08] The non payroll related type ones.

[1:56:10] That that was

[1:56:12] just kind of something that was missed in the preliminary budgeting process.

[1:56:15] But we decided to correct it.

[1:56:18] The criminal prosecution, the Goodhue County side

[1:56:24] overall it was a 5% increase from 2025.

[1:56:30] And this increase adjusts to correct that.

[1:56:35] Winter planters.

[1:56:37] That's an activity that has occurred the last couple of years.

[1:56:41] Somehow, mistakenly, there was nothing included in the 25 budget.

[1:56:46] We may have an item before the end of the year before you.

[1:56:49] We're getting out in front of it for the 26 budget.

[1:56:52] And what we're proposing is, counsel contribution of $10,000 with the remainder

[1:56:58] coming from some sort of fundraising through downtown Main Street.

[1:57:02] The historical cost of this project in the last four years,

[1:57:07] since it fully formed, is between 15 and $20,000.

[1:57:12] So we feel like a $10,000 contribution is probably somewhere in the middle.

[1:57:18] Then those

[1:57:21] last three items, the one on the bottom there, that's really

[1:57:25] just a reflection of what we decided last week that was that transfer

[1:57:30] from to the library being reduced to not higher.

[1:57:34] One of the library positions.

[1:57:37] There's, software that HR

[1:57:40] uses, that one of the modules is not being utilized.

[1:57:43] And we feel like we're going to be able to get that canceled

[1:57:46] and not have to pay it.

[1:57:49] And then that other one,

[1:57:51] the education reimbursement, that's, that's a line that has existed

[1:57:55] for quite a while, but just hasn't really been fully utilized.

[1:57:59] There's $30,000 in the budget.

[1:58:02] And if we take a look historically up to the last ten years or so,

[1:58:08] roughly half of that over the last ten years it has been utilized for.

[1:58:13] So this is kind of just a rightsizing of that program,

[1:58:17] not an elimination of it, but getting it more in line with what

[1:58:22] what we expect to see.

[1:58:27] So those are the operating items.

[1:58:29] And then we also have just some administrative

[1:58:32] changes on the capital side. The CIP side.

[1:58:36] And before engineering

[1:58:39] Director Rainier takes a bow.

[1:58:45] There's a few items there

[1:58:47] that are reclassifying

[1:58:50] simply because of how we do our CIP inside of our budgeting software.

[1:58:56] The $13,000 in the $60,000

[1:58:59] weren't incorporated into our original CIP numbers.

[1:59:03] So we're really just course correcting to get those correct.

[1:59:07] They're not new projects.

[1:59:11] They're not.

[1:59:13] They're not reclassifying the years or anything.

[1:59:16] It's just it's it's getting them correctly included into our general fund CIP

[1:59:22] because they generally have

[1:59:23] there's typically at least one alley project every year.

[1:59:27] So this gets that alley project scheduled in the right year.

[1:59:31] So there is an alley project and 26,

[1:59:35] there's a couple of dump trucks.

[1:59:38] That first one there, the single axle dump truck.

[1:59:43] Sean has brought forward an opportunity.

[1:59:45] This was a truck that is fully in the was fully in the 2027

[1:59:50] CIP amount for $275,000.

[1:59:54] We're bumping up from 27 to 26,

[1:59:59] 150,000 to purchase the chassis,

[2:00:03] to kind of avoid some federal

[2:00:07] emission standards that are coming by then.

[2:00:11] So we're really we're going to bump up.

[2:00:14] So it'll be a reduction of the 27 CIP

[2:00:18] and moving that chassis purchase forward

[2:00:21] in 26.

[2:00:24] The next one is the dual axle dump truck.

[2:00:26] That's one that Shawn and his staff have determined

[2:00:31] the existing truck

[2:00:33] that would be on slate to be replaced

[2:00:36] is still operational,

[2:00:38] with the caveat of some additional

[2:00:43] I guess we can call it maintenance, but it's really just purchase of a new box.

[2:00:46] I believe.

[2:00:50] So that was in

[2:00:51] the the preliminary CIP for that total, that 210,000

[2:00:57] with 136 originating from the general fund.

[2:01:01] What Shawn has proposed is bumping that because of the condition of the truck

[2:01:06] that would be replaced by this purchase,

[2:01:10] he can extend the life of that.

[2:01:12] So moving from 2026 to 2031,

[2:01:16] with the increased maintenance cost of 50,000, there.

[2:01:21] And then Shawn also offered out

[2:01:24] there was a roadside mower in the preliminary CIP

[2:01:27] that just.

[2:01:31] Is being eliminated, from the CIP.

[2:01:35] And then this is the chance for engineering Director

[2:01:37] Regnier to take Vo, because he came in last week

[2:01:41] and he offered up that the scope of work

[2:01:45] has changed on the railroad crossing quiet

[2:01:48] zone.

[2:01:51] All I hear him explain any of the technical details on it,

[2:01:55] but essentially the scope of work could change.

[2:01:57] The original project looked like it would need to be more extensive.

[2:02:01] He spent quite a bit of time with the railroads.

[2:02:05] And in those meetings and in those terminations,

[2:02:08] he's determined or been able to determine that far

[2:02:13] less will be required to still accomplish the same goal.

[2:02:17] And do you want to go ahead and just mention what it is?

[2:02:19] And also you throw throwing that caveat about that November 7th or 14th date?

[2:02:23] Sure. Yeah.

[2:02:25] The the caveat is this technically, we're still in the review period.

[2:02:29] Haven't received any comments and don't expect any.

[2:02:31] But it doesn't end until November 17th.

[2:02:34] But again, don't expect any comments.

[2:02:37] But essentially we were under the impression

[2:02:40] based on all prior discussions going back to 2020, even,

[2:02:45] that we were going to need a new quad gate system.

[2:02:47] If you recall, we talked about that the spring,

[2:02:51] I was able to talk

[2:02:52] with the railroad and more beneficially, the freight staff,

[2:02:57] the Federal Rail Administration staff,

[2:03:00] on some alternative options and, and talking with Shawn,

[2:03:06] we should be able to implement a different way to do it.

[2:03:10] We can channelize the road instead of putting up gates.

[2:03:12] We can leave the crossing alone and do some road work within the roadway

[2:03:17] and, yeah, save a significant amount of money.

[2:03:21] And truthfully, the 600,000 that was in there

[2:03:24] probably was a half million dollars short of what we would have needed

[2:03:27] if we needed the quad gate arms.

[2:03:28] So, it was again with the assumption

[2:03:33] that we do get no further comments.

[2:03:37] A good savings and

[2:03:39] a lot easier to implement because we don't have to wait

[2:03:42] for the railroad to install a new gate.

[2:03:45] Wow. I feel like I

[2:03:46] have an awesome comment for that, but all I can say is wow, great job, good job.

[2:03:50] Yeah. And amazing.

[2:03:53] Yeah, I was not expecting that.

[2:03:54] And I got called to my office by

[2:03:57] these two.

[2:03:58] It's usually the conversation you had with public works or engineering.

[2:04:01] So very nice.

[2:04:05] Can I just ask where it. Shawn.

[2:04:07] For the dual axle dump truck and for you guys?

[2:04:12] You said there's a 50,000.

[2:04:13] Where's that 50,000 on this to replace the.

[2:04:19] It's the 32,000.

[2:04:20] So that truck is used both in the utility side.

[2:04:24] So water sewer and in the general fund side.

[2:04:26] So that cost is broken down.

[2:04:28] The 32,000 would be the general fund portion 9000.

[2:04:32] The two $9,000.

[2:04:33] The 18,000 combined would be the water and the sewer portion.

[2:04:36] Okay. Contributions. All right. Thank you.

[2:04:40] Any other questions on these CIP items

[2:04:44] so that this is not here?

[2:04:46] There are two different things.

[2:04:47] The report I was looking at the report and I'm seeing correct.

[2:04:50] The 50,000 was added today.

[2:04:54] To update.

[2:05:01] So it's still have significant savings from the capital improvement plan.

[2:05:04] We believe this plan works.

[2:05:06] And, we would recommend moving with it.

[2:05:11] Any other questions

[2:05:12] or concerns on these changes?

[2:05:16] Just so taking off the road side more.

[2:05:19] That's fine.

[2:05:20] Yeah. It's, it's a piece of equipment.

[2:05:22] That was.

[2:05:23] It was the is it's, schedule replacement.

[2:05:28] And we're.

[2:05:33] Not sure that when that piece of equipment

[2:05:36] breaks and it's irreparable, we're not so sure we'll just continue that.

[2:05:40] We'll probably contract that work.

[2:05:42] Oh, okay.

[2:05:45] Well, again, to all the departments, I would say thank you because you've

[2:05:48] obviously put some extra work into these and creative ways.

[2:05:51] And so thank you for doing that. Well,

[2:05:54] so now we've got a little additional information for you.

[2:05:57] We're not recommending any changes, but we've had

[2:06:00] questions from the mayor and city council about this.

[2:06:03] So we thought this would be an opportune time for to allow you to have

[2:06:06] a discussion about them.

[2:06:11] So the first one is on the performance pages.

[2:06:14] There's been questions about the city's performance pay.

[2:06:17] These are the

[2:06:19] these are the numbers, that we've had budgeted and,

[2:06:22] and compared to actual so if council wants any additional information

[2:06:28] that other was in the agenda or is attached to the slide,

[2:06:32] please ask away.

[2:06:39] Any questions or comments on this?

[2:06:43] Mayor

[2:06:44] I haven't seen or it's graded at all.

[2:06:50] And the metrics and things.

[2:06:51] If I could get that, I'd appreciate it.

[2:06:54] Yeah.

[2:06:54] Well, as the I don't need right now.

[2:06:56] Yeah. We’ll ask HR send that.

[2:06:57] Thank you. That's something that we can have HR include.

[2:07:00] Thank you.

[2:07:03] So I'll I'll go first.

[2:07:06] I'm very uncomfortable with this program.

[2:07:12] I have been since I first saw it.

[2:07:15] When I look at the criteria,

[2:07:20] for this program, it's,

[2:07:24] very soft, very, very soft.

[2:07:27] And there are

[2:07:29] there are no metrics to it.

[2:07:32] There's just not metrics.

[2:07:34] And,

[2:07:36] a positive, cooperative approach to working with,

[2:07:39] like, the leaders to me, that your job,

[2:07:43] significant contributions

[2:07:46] to City council's strategic priorities, goals and objectives.

[2:07:49] It's part of the job definition.

[2:07:52] So I'm and as I go down,

[2:07:55] I'm uncomfortable and coming

[2:07:58] coming from my background where we did

[2:08:01] have incentive programs for leaders, which I support, I fully support.

[2:08:06] It was very based in metrics.

[2:08:08] And I can tell you, the first metric was financial performance.

[2:08:13] Now it's different in the public sector, and I understand that.

[2:08:16] But I can tell you that if the company,

[2:08:20] even if my division of the company met

[2:08:22] the performance metrics or even exceeded them,

[2:08:25] but the entire company as a whole did, no one got a bonus or an incentive pay.

[2:08:31] And then there were other things.

[2:08:32] So I was in quality and safety.

[2:08:34] So we met the financial metrics.

[2:08:36] But if the organization didn't meet the quality and safety metrics,

[2:08:40] we didn't get that proportion of the bonus.

[2:08:42] This is not,

[2:08:45] this is not based on measurable, metrics.

[2:08:50] That bothers me.

[2:08:51] The second thing that concerns me is,

[2:08:55] and I know I'm comparing,

[2:08:58] private to public, and it's probably not a fair comparison,

[2:09:02] but it's interesting here

[2:09:05] that even the nonunion

[2:09:07] employees get the same Cola

[2:09:10] benefits that the union employees get.

[2:09:13] So if the union and I can't remember exactly what we negotiated for

[2:09:17] the next two years, the, the exempt employees

[2:09:21] get that same Cola,

[2:09:25] same cola increase.

[2:09:27] That's generally not true in the private sector.

[2:09:31] So we have leaders who are getting

[2:09:37] raises.

[2:09:37] And I'm not saying you shouldn't get raises.

[2:09:39] And then on top of that you're getting incentive pay.

[2:09:43] That's really not based on measurable metrics.

[2:09:46] So I am very uncomfortable

[2:09:49] with continuing this program as it is.

[2:09:53] It just

[2:09:54] it it is,

[2:09:57] it doesn't seem

[2:09:59] fair.

[2:10:01] Fair to our taxpayers, fair to our city.

[2:10:05] It just doesn't seem very fair.

[2:10:11] Kim. When we did the

[2:10:14] the most recent pay study, we compare it to other cities

[2:10:17] and we hired, consultant to look at all this.

[2:10:22] This was taken into account based on how we compare it across the board.

[2:10:29] And I don't believe that there was

[2:10:31] any other cities that had anything quite like this.

[2:10:35] So I questioned, maintain it.

[2:10:40] It's, maintaining it as it currently is.

[2:10:45] Without some sort of review

[2:10:49] within it.

[2:10:55] There's um. Ron?

[2:10:58] I would agree with what's been said already.

[2:11:00] The other thing is to is, is like with the step increases

[2:11:03] and you're kind of guaranteed.

[2:11:05] I mean, what is a step increase in the new pay plan?

[2:11:07] 3.1 or 3.7% a year?

[2:11:11] I think it's 3.2 or 3, two five, 3.2,

[2:11:15] you know, and so then like this year, there's a 4%

[2:11:19] cola next year or a 3% cola.

[2:11:22] You know, in my experience in the private sector, you know,

[2:11:25] and we had an incentive program, but half of it was a company related.

[2:11:29] How did the company do?

[2:11:30] You know, if they didn't meet their goals, half

[2:11:32] your incentive was gone right off the bat.

[2:11:34] And then a lot of times your individual goals,

[2:11:37] you know, are part of that

[2:11:37] overall overarching goal that the company had.

[2:11:40] So a lot of times that was cut back to.

[2:11:44] So I agree that there's not enough metrics here.

[2:11:46] The other thing is too, in the private sector,

[2:11:49] not everybody gets the same Cola, you know, like the exempt people.

[2:11:54] That's all based on your performance as well.

[2:11:57] So I agree with what's been said.

[2:11:59] And and just my experience is that there isn't enough here.

[2:12:03] You know, I would like to see the 50% be, you know, what we do with the levy.

[2:12:07] And I know we kind of control a lot of what happens

[2:12:11] with the levy, right, based on the decisions we make.

[2:12:15] So a lot of times it's out of your control,

[2:12:16] but it's not much different

[2:12:17] than in the private sector where you're in the in a big company.

[2:12:22] Right.

[2:12:22] And you have no no say over what their overarching goals are and say,

[2:12:26] this is a path for me and you can know that, you know, that's not going to work,

[2:12:30] but that's just how it goes.

[2:12:31] So I would like to see I don't know that we need to get rid of it totally,

[2:12:36] but I think there needs to be a little more,

[2:12:39] objectivity in here.

[2:12:45] Yeah.

[2:12:45] I don't think it's any secret.

[2:12:47] I've been opposed to this since the day I was elected.

[2:12:50] First term.

[2:12:52] You know, it would be really interesting to know,

[2:12:56] how long this has been in effect in Red wing.

[2:12:59] And what other communities?

[2:13:01] It just seems to me that it's really odd that were bonuses based on,

[2:13:08] you know, on the, the list of, of items

[2:13:12] that are on our sheet here.

[2:13:16] You know, we, we did last year,

[2:13:19] pay equity study and, and, I think when it was all said and done,

[2:13:23] most received about a 9% increase in their, in their salaries.

[2:13:29] I'll tell.

[2:13:31] So I don't, I don't think that, you know,

[2:13:35] we're not paying fairly,

[2:13:38] for staff, you know, I mean, would I be open

[2:13:41] possibly to, another way of doing it,

[2:13:45] but I would be, I would be in favor of reducing

[2:13:49] just this cost of $308,000 that we're budgeting.

[2:13:55] To reduce our levy.

[2:13:58] I think it I

[2:14:03] this is a complicated comparison, and I'm going to make it anyway.

[2:14:06] Here's the situation as I see it.

[2:14:10] We just said that we would do

[2:14:13] the city would offer half of the paid family leave,

[2:14:17] and the other half would come out of the employee paycheck.

[2:14:21] I heard that, and, I said I was probably going to circle back.

[2:14:24] And here we are.

[2:14:25] And we're talking about performance pay, and we're talking about performance

[2:14:29] pay for the one group that has to go on Iqra Insurance.

[2:14:35] So they have an extraordinary, situation

[2:14:38] where we negotiate with our union staff and in the union staff

[2:14:43] have our health insurance,

[2:14:46] which is a significantly better package overall or less, you know.

[2:14:51] Right.

[2:14:51] And so I am mindful of when,

[2:14:57] when the staff who take that promotion, they say yes to this.

[2:15:02] They also say yes to stepping off the insurance.

[2:15:05] And that's a big deal these days.

[2:15:07] And I think about the and and the sacrifice, if you will,

[2:15:13] of stepping out of that with the knowledge that there's this opportunity

[2:15:17] that I can probably pay my health insurance with my performance pay,

[2:15:24] that's where my brain goes.

[2:15:26] So I'm using my performance pay, probably to pay for my health insurance,

[2:15:30] because I'm not getting it so that being a working person, that's where my head is

[2:15:36] thinking about how that investment is, it's a real thing.

[2:15:41] And,

[2:15:44] Should we look at tidying up this performance?

[2:15:48] I'm not saying that we should just be passing out bonuses.

[2:15:51] That's not what I'm saying at all.

[2:15:53] However, at the same time,

[2:15:56] if we're going to say, let's go ahead and eliminate this performance

[2:16:00] pay, I'm going to say, then let's go ahead and get rid of Iqra

[2:16:04] and pull everybody back in to our health insurance.

[2:16:07] That is my that is what I'm proposing.

[2:16:10] If we say no to this, then I say we say yes to the other.

[2:16:14] And,

[2:16:14] And I really want us to think about that because I think that's a real concern

[2:16:18] that people who are in leadership in this organization have, I

[2:16:24] that's a real consideration.

[2:16:27] I'd like you to consider that as well.

[2:16:33] Mayor Iiocco, do you want to add anything?

[2:16:35] I know I think you went first, so I don't mean to...

[2:16:37] I just how many folks are on the performance pay?

[2:16:42] It's roughly 55 050.

[2:16:45] Okay. Thanks.

[2:16:47] I just need to know

[2:16:50] the whole program.

[2:16:50] I see this, I understand that, but our metrics on who grades it,

[2:16:54] what's going on, what's it, what's it compared to?

[2:16:58] I mean, when I was in business, you know, we had performances like,

[2:17:02] you know,

[2:17:03] council Member Snyder was saying, you know, here's what you have to agree to

[2:17:06] in here.

[2:17:07] It's kind of it's kind of open ended.

[2:17:09] It seems to me. I just unless there's more into it.

[2:17:12] And I'd like whenever you get a chance, I'd like more information on that.

[2:17:16] Yeah.

[2:17:16] And if I could, I think it'd be important to get,

[2:17:20] probably our top of my head, Shawn public safety side.

[2:17:24] Because one of the biggest reasons this program came into existence

[2:17:30] was because of the difficulty in getting,

[2:17:32] good union members to jump into a management role,

[2:17:37] and they could speak much more eloquently, than I could about it,

[2:17:41] but that that I know that will could creep up as an issue moving forward.

[2:17:47] Yeah.

[2:17:47] I guess I'll end with my comments with of just I mean, I when I was someone

[2:17:51] that asked for these numbers and I was I mean, I hate to be dramatic with it,

[2:17:54] but I was shocked that it's that much money.

[2:17:56] I think to the public for 50 employees like that number is huge.

[2:18:00] And again,

[2:18:01] and the idea that we've just done a pay study, we've gotten everybody a very

[2:18:05] competitive market rate that we've compared to other cities to it.

[2:18:09] It just is something we have to reform in some way.

[2:18:12] And again, on the points about like performance and incentives

[2:18:16] and metrics, I think that makes sense.

[2:18:18] I would be willing to have a little bit of a hybrid system, maybe for 2026,

[2:18:22] where we set aside 100 grand rather than over 300,000, and

[2:18:27] and ask the staff to look at a new program that could be done.

[2:18:31] And then with council approval, could go ahead, would do that.

[2:18:33] I mean, that's what I'm comfortable with.

[2:18:35] I think just seeing these numbers is too much, especially knowing the

[2:18:39] the increases in salaries that have happened

[2:18:41] because of our pay studies and and that had to happen too.

[2:18:43] But I just think in general, the benefits is something

[2:18:47] we've been wanting to understand more and to show some of it. So,

[2:18:52] I'll leave it at that.

[2:18:54] Any other

[2:18:56] comments or questions?

[2:18:57] I mean, I feel like that gives a little bit of direction, but

[2:19:00] let me ask you a question, Janie.

[2:19:02] Then what do you think about, pulling, pulling across

[2:19:05] and bringing the staff back on to the self-insured policy?

[2:19:09] I understand where you're coming from, Vicky, but I think that's way

[2:19:12] bigger conversation that I just don't think we have time for tonight.

[2:19:16] So I proposed my hybrid thing, and I appreciate you doing that,

[2:19:19] but I just think that's opening up a huge can of worms for tonight.

[2:19:22] That's going to delay us much more.

[2:19:24] So I just would say we can't have that discussion tonight.

[2:19:29] Any other questions or comments?

[2:19:31] I support the 100,000, and I'd be willing to work with staff

[2:19:35] and figuring out a fair system to, create this incentive program

[2:19:42] as what I.

[2:19:45] I think that's the

[2:19:45] thing we're looking for pretty clear consensus,

[2:19:48] because in a way, we're doing this a little out of order.

[2:19:51] It's not that there's a policy change that's having an impact on the numbers

[2:19:57] we're trying to back into it.

[2:19:58] So if there's a consensus on a number

[2:20:01] that you want it reduced budget wise, and then the policy has to change

[2:20:06] after the fact, that's what

[2:20:09] we would need direction on here tonight.

[2:20:12] How about we go down the line again, maybe just say again, no,

[2:20:15] you don't want it anymore.

[2:20:16] Or if you're okay with $100,000 in the budget that.

[2:20:20] Chris, you think that's a fair way to do it or what?

[2:20:23] What do you think?

[2:20:25] I think that's fine.

[2:20:26] I mean, if you have differing amounts to discuss,

[2:20:29] certainly, but I've heard two comments on 100.

[2:20:32] That's a

[2:20:34] a starting point for discussion.

[2:20:36] Sure.

[2:20:36] If you want to change a number, that's just fine. To

[2:20:40] Ron. I'll start over there.

[2:20:41] Sorry.

[2:20:43] I would say, you know, let's rework it.

[2:20:45] But I think maybe going down to 100 is a little too much.

[2:20:49] In the first bite.

[2:20:50] You know, I wouldn't be happy going any more than half, you know.

[2:20:56] So 154 or whatever.

[2:21:03] I'm at I'm at zero.

[2:21:07] Okay.

[2:21:07] I mean, I'm fine going with 154.

[2:21:09] If we could get a good, consistent consultant or a consensus on that number.

[2:21:15] So 154.

[2:21:19] I mean we've done zero.

[2:21:24] I'm feeling really frustrated and

[2:21:28] I'm going to say I'm going to say 308

[2:21:30] because I without without additional conversation about,

[2:21:34] about my proposal, I'm going to stay at 308.

[2:21:40] Mayor, do you want to add anything?

[2:21:41] I have.

[2:21:42] No, it's that's up to you folks. Ok.

[2:21:47] why don't we move on to kind of our last item,

[2:21:49] the memberships, which will probably take a while to.

[2:21:53] But let's do what we can.

[2:21:59] Yeah.

[2:21:59] So really simply here, here we are reintroducing

[2:22:03] we talked about this at a prior workshop.

[2:22:08] But we're calling it out here again.

[2:22:09] And in the packet we provided a little more detailed analysis on

[2:22:14] just what each one of these,

[2:22:18] city memberships is, the amount

[2:22:21] and then some narrative on what it provides for the city.

[2:22:25] So I guess if there were any of these memberships

[2:22:30] that council wanted to call out or ask additional questions,

[2:22:34] I don't know if I feel the need to read off the six pages

[2:22:37] worth of narrative on what each one of them does, but

[2:22:40] and when we were compiling this two, we spoke to most of these,

[2:22:46] different organizations.

[2:22:47] And most of you, if you ever want to be willing to come down and provide you

[2:22:50] with whatever presentation you want to.

[2:22:55] Maybe

[2:22:55] we'll go right into the questions and thoughts, if that's okay.

[2:22:58] Fran. Any questions?

[2:23:00] So the League of Minnesota Cities, membership,

[2:23:03] do we have to have that membership in order

[2:23:05] to get the insurance and everything through the league

[2:23:08] first?

[2:23:10] Yes. And it's also beyond the insurance.

[2:23:13] There's a a lot of other things to Framingham,

[2:23:16] like we could get the number of contacts and calls that we've made through

[2:23:20] staff to, to the various aspects of the league.

[2:23:22] But it's it's a lot of different things that they do

[2:23:26] for for the city of Red Wing.

[2:23:29] And then for, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.

[2:23:33] Is anybody in the room on that?

[2:23:36] Also,

[2:23:37] you know, I, I guess I'd like to know, I mean, is that do we get our money's

[2:23:41] worth from that, that one, I would say I go back to I think I was here

[2:23:47] maybe a year or two and, we had a,

[2:23:51] assistant council administrator named Jeff Holbrook, and the council

[2:23:55] was asking about memberships, and I just remember vividly what he said.

[2:24:00] He said the to the council is said to be derelict in your duty,

[2:24:04] up out of that partnership or that coalition, and that's all he said.

[2:24:09] I would elaborate that the coalition utility city is, is,

[2:24:14] extremely important because, first of all, it's a small group of people.

[2:24:20] A small group of cities includes like Monticello, Becker, Oak, Park Heights,

[2:24:25] Cohasset, Red wing that have these large baseload plants in their communities.

[2:24:30] And prior to to its inception, it was always,

[2:24:35] what was a David versus Goliath?

[2:24:39] And so at least pulling this group together, we have a common voice,

[2:24:42] and we are much more effective at the legislature pushing back

[2:24:47] or actually having a voice in the conversation about utility taxation.

[2:24:51] And probably now more than ever, it's really not just about how utilities

[2:24:56] and railroads and pipelines are taxed, primarily utilities,

[2:25:00] but it's also what can the state do to assist the communities

[2:25:04] that are going to be transitioning?

[2:25:05] Because we'll be one of those.

[2:25:07] So, the other thing I also wanted to mention

[2:25:10] is it's not unusual for the coal ash utility cities.

[2:25:15] I serve as a treasurer to boot.

[2:25:17] They collect, they have a war chest, so to speak, and we've set a level

[2:25:22] that that war chest should never that those resources should never be over

[2:25:26] one years annual do so

[2:25:29] for example, last year our our dues were in that $50,000 range,

[2:25:34] but we also received a check back for 75,000.

[2:25:37] So it's not

[2:25:39] technically it's that's what we're going to pay.

[2:25:41] But we also I just wanted to emphasize that

[2:25:44] if we have too many resources, we do on a routine basis

[2:25:48] get substantial amounts back.

[2:25:50] But so my question was more on the Coalition of Greater Minnesota cities.

[2:25:54] I understand the utilities, but the coal, the other one, that

[2:25:57] that's a bigger group and it's more this is more like tape.

[2:26:00] Yeah, I think you're right. Yep. Thank you.

[2:26:02] I think those that groups are important because I respect the league.

[2:26:06] I work with the league quite a bit and the league

[2:26:11] is great at

[2:26:14] representing all cities.

[2:26:16] But it's difficult for them to represent

[2:26:19] and provide a voice for Greater Minnesota.

[2:26:22] So what I think about often is, I mean, it's probably

[2:26:25] not even it's a probably not a very well-kept, dirty little secret.

[2:26:29] But like the Met Council, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Rochester,

[2:26:32] they literally have lobbyists at the Capitol all year. And

[2:26:37] greater Minnesota

[2:26:39] cities have needs that only the GMC is the voice for those needs.

[2:26:44] For example, transportation funding is a is a big one because the Twin

[2:26:49] Cities metro area could easily swallow up all the transportation funding.

[2:26:53] I think about more recent efforts

[2:26:56] and I think about, EMS, all the, issues with the EMS.

[2:27:00] They are the voice for that.

[2:27:02] They, represent greater Minnesota cities concerns.

[2:27:07] The only real voice.

[2:27:11] And because they represent little over 100 cities

[2:27:14] outside the metro area,

[2:27:18] they have sway with legislators.

[2:27:20] Thank you.

[2:27:24] Questions?

[2:27:24] Comments?

[2:27:27] Mayor.

[2:27:29] The league offers us not only insurance

[2:27:32] and maybe our administrator because he's on their board.

[2:27:35] Legal assistance.

[2:27:38] What else do they offer us?

[2:27:41] The city clerk training process.

[2:27:43] The training for all of you as both newly elected and and senior elected officials.

[2:27:48] There's there's resources

[2:27:51] in almost any area of city government that they, they provide.

[2:27:54] It's in the coalition.

[2:27:56] Then basically they just lobby.

[2:28:01] That's I wouldn't say they just lobby.

[2:28:04] There's they they, support certain areas is the way I would, I would put it for.

[2:28:10] So for example, the other thing that always comes to my mind is,

[2:28:13] thinking about the,

[2:28:17] the first part of this workshop or talking about wastewater.

[2:28:20] I mean, they are the people that,

[2:28:24] go to bat for the towns like Ozark, us, where they're going to be for

[2:28:27] to put in 100 and $140 million system like we were just talking about.

[2:28:33] And they, advocate for those osages, for example, like for,

[2:28:40] against, the, the permitting process,

[2:28:43] you know, taking things out of the permit that don't need to be in there.

[2:28:46] I mean, communities for example, we live on the Mississippi.

[2:28:50] We want to keep it clean, too.

[2:28:51] But if that makes no scientific

[2:28:55] sense,

[2:28:56] to spend these, you know, $130 million,

[2:29:00] somebody has got to have a voice to push back on that kind of stuff, too.

[2:29:04] I'm really hesitant to say they just lobby because it's not

[2:29:08] just a lobbying organization.

[2:29:09] They're they do a lot of work organizing those 100 communities.

[2:29:14] I said, I'll just be blunt about it.

[2:29:16] I'm the only finance guy that's on the board.

[2:29:19] It's all mayors.

[2:29:20] So council administrators, things of that type,

[2:29:23] because they're trying to get a voice for the things that are important

[2:29:26] to greater Minnesota childcare, housing, all those different programs

[2:29:30] to get them funded.

[2:29:31] The BPI, which we've used previously to expand

[2:29:36] industrial parks to provide funding for, numerous different things.

[2:29:40] And I understand, but I'm just looking at it's more than double

[2:29:44] what the league does.

[2:29:45] And I think the league, at least what I'm hearing now,

[2:29:48] the league may be more of a benefit for us.

[2:29:52] I don't know.

[2:29:53] I mean, obviously everybody has a different view, but

[2:29:55] I think the way I always think about it

[2:29:58] is they're both great organizations or they're complementary

[2:30:03] because the league simply, just by its membership

[2:30:08] and through its policy committees, it's that they,

[2:30:11] they can't take a position on certain sensitive subjects.

[2:30:14] For example, the big one being LGA,

[2:30:17] you know, after,

[2:30:19] significant number of cities in Minnesota receive LGA,

[2:30:23] but primarily that core urban area receives none.

[2:30:28] So they can't advocate for things where there's controversy

[2:30:32] between greater Minnesota

[2:30:36] and the more, urbanized areas.

[2:30:39] And so they're just a great complement to each other.

[2:30:43] And they and you can see that, by the way, they they work together

[2:30:46] collectively on a number of different issues.

[2:30:49] Thank you.

[2:30:50] So the metro's kind of like us.

[2:30:52] They don't get any LGA speak of

[2:30:55] for I mean generically that's a point.

[2:30:57] I mean, I'm going to come from the I mean, the cost of the greater

[2:31:01] Minnesota cities.

[2:31:01] And I've had the privilege of attending both conferences

[2:31:05] and, quite frankly, they're very similar.

[2:31:09] And I enjoy going to both of them.

[2:31:12] But, this seems like a pretty high cost

[2:31:16] to some me and 1 or 2 other council people

[2:31:19] to a, a conference for a couple of days.

[2:31:22] Other than that, I don't, I don't,

[2:31:27] I'm not involved with them at all.

[2:31:28] So, I mean, I do enjoy going to the lake,

[2:31:31] Minnesota cities and a lot of times the subject matter is the same.

[2:31:35] You know, whether it's a daycare issues or what

[2:31:38] have you that we, you know, or cannabis or, or what have you.

[2:31:41] So I mean, I would be okay if we didn't continue

[2:31:46] with our, membership, but the coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities,

[2:31:50] and to me, I don't, you know, the,

[2:31:55] coalition of utility cities, I don't know,

[2:31:58] are they going to do anything to help us with,

[2:32:04] I mean, I'm not sure how they can help

[2:32:06] Red Wing, to the tune of $51,000.

[2:32:09] Yeah. So what would they do?

[2:32:13] And this is a part of how they're due schedule to set up their deuce schedule.

[2:32:18] Set up a how much tax capacity those, baseload plants have.

[2:32:23] And in your community, Red Wing has the highest basal value of any community.

[2:32:28] So we pay the most in the state. Yeah.

[2:32:30] So we pay more than the other seven members.

[2:32:34] They I just think about recently,

[2:32:38] like setting up the Office of Energy Transition, which is really,

[2:32:42] helped us start

[2:32:45] to develop a strategy for how to address,

[2:32:48] when these baseload plants close ours will close them at some point in time.

[2:32:53] The Community Energy Transition Grant program was a direct

[2:32:56] result of efforts in, I want to say, 2020 or 2021 from this group.

[2:33:02] We've recently received $1 million grant out of that program.

[2:33:06] And there's also this,

[2:33:09] electric generation transition aid that's set up,

[2:33:14] as a direct result of the coalition, the utility cities.

[2:33:18] It's something out in our future.

[2:33:19] So it's not something bright, shiny and, oh, in front of you now.

[2:33:22] But if the plant for some reason closed tomorrow,

[2:33:27] that program is going to pay us

[2:33:29] 100% of what the utility paid us this year, and it's going to pay us

[2:33:34] 95% the 90 than the 85 than 80

[2:33:37] rate us provides us a runway.

[2:33:39] And it's the nature of the coalition utility cities is

[2:33:44] you don't necessarily see this immediate result,

[2:33:47] but the long term benefit of the programing

[2:33:53] and what we're trying to do is of vital importance,

[2:33:56] not only this community, but all those other communities

[2:33:58] that have these baseload plants that need to address these transitions.

[2:34:02] But Marshall, would we still get that if we weren't paying $51,000 next year?

[2:34:07] I doubt it, no, I would say you weren't because

[2:34:11] pretty been established plug or I'm sorry, is that already been established?

[2:34:16] The transition.

[2:34:18] Yeah.

[2:34:19] The the that electric generation transition aid program

[2:34:23] has been established. Okay.

[2:34:25] But Neil,

[2:34:26] I think you'll learn really quickly is what the what the legislature give it.

[2:34:29] They can take it away.

[2:34:31] So there's always going to be that need pressing need to have a voice up there

[2:34:35] to continue to keep these programs in place or to get them funded.

[2:34:39] I guess where I'm coming from is

[2:34:42] this is running

[2:34:43] us, and there's what, five members in this organization

[2:34:46] say there's seven, seven, 7 or 8 communities.

[2:34:50] Okay.

[2:34:53] It, seven, including seven, including Red wing right now.

[2:34:57] Yeah. That's right, 1000 a year.

[2:35:00] And plant is up for a renewal to 54.

[2:35:05] We're looking at the shy of a million and a half dollars in just membership

[2:35:09] to be part of that group at 51,000 a year

[2:35:11] for the next 26, eight years, or whatever it is,

[2:35:16] it's going to run us about a million and a half dollars.

[2:35:17] Really?

[2:35:18] Yeah.

[2:35:18] I mean, I can't I'm not I don't have a crystal ball.

[2:35:21] I can't tell you what the issues are going to be, because the fees

[2:35:26] that you have to remember the are only point out that

[2:35:32] the dues are a reflection of what the action plan is like.

[2:35:35] What do we need to get accomplished.

[2:35:36] So those have been higher and in recent years,

[2:35:40] and they have in the past because we've got we need a lot more,

[2:35:44] traction, a lot more hours, a lot more work

[2:35:49] to not only protect these programs, but to get them established.

[2:35:52] So is 50,000 normal?

[2:35:55] It's a no.

[2:35:56] But I'm not going to tell you that it's in a typical year.

[2:36:00] It's the League of Minnesota cities that, you know, basically 18,000.

[2:36:04] It is more expensive than that.

[2:36:06] And about three times, what is the difference

[2:36:09] between the coalition of utility cities and the nuclear waste or energy coalition?

[2:36:13] The nuclear waste strategy Coalition is the only municipal member of it.

[2:36:19] But it's,

[2:36:21] it includes folks like Xcel.

[2:36:25] Atomic Energy,

[2:36:28] and those other huge, large industrial players

[2:36:33] that, like us, have a concern about what's going to happen once that nuclear fuel.

[2:36:37] So it's, a quick avenue to, to learn what's going on.

[2:36:42] You know, that side of the industry, what's going on at the NRC,

[2:36:45] what's going on at Congress related to, spent nuclear

[2:36:50] fuel and conceivably, its ultimate disposal.

[2:36:54] So that's what that basically is.

[2:36:56] Any other comments, questions?

[2:37:02] I'm not sure how we want to tackle this one.

[2:37:04] Maybe.

[2:37:04] Is it okay, mayor if I start on that side again, if anyone's interested in kind of

[2:37:10] taking away or a membership,

[2:37:13] I don't know if that's probably not the right wording, but

[2:37:16] the,

[2:37:19] coalition of utility cities, it seems that

[2:37:24] the plant's going to be operational till 2054,

[2:37:28] and we're paying the most just because it's based on some

[2:37:33] who generates the most doesn't mean we get more out of it.

[2:37:37] I would I would be fine if we weren't a member of that

[2:37:42] and the coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.

[2:37:44] I went to that, meeting with,

[2:37:48] our council president,

[2:37:49] and it was a couple of hours in and we go to our legislators

[2:37:53] and, you know, lobby for our legislators, which we can do at any time.

[2:37:57] I'm open on that. I just

[2:37:59] I don't see where we're getting a bigger benefit from that

[2:38:03] than we would from the League of Minnesota.

[2:38:04] Cities.

[2:38:09] As I'm looking over the,

[2:38:12] the report here, I

[2:38:14] notice on the Coalition of Utility cities,

[2:38:17] the last line of recent accomplishments, the city of Red Wing recently received

[2:38:22] $1 million award.

[2:38:26] As a direct result of being a member

[2:38:28] of the Coalition of Utility Cities.

[2:38:34] So I'm I'm struggling

[2:38:36] to kind of figure out.

[2:38:37] If we got $1 million.

[2:38:41] So we kick them to the curb.

[2:38:43] I mean, I, I don't I'm,

[2:38:46] you know, I'm just saying it like in the common vernacular,

[2:38:49] but I think, I haven't given enough thought or consideration to any of these.

[2:38:55] So at this point, I'm not willing to say, let's don't do any of them.

[2:38:58] I really appreciate the regular and consistent communication

[2:39:02] we get from the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.

[2:39:05] I've done some of the things that they have sponsored, including the,

[2:39:08] the housing summit that I went to in Rochester, which was really helpful.

[2:39:13] And I really appreciate and learned so much from that investment of my time

[2:39:17] and going down there.

[2:39:18] So I think they offer some unique things that aren't.

[2:39:21] So, that and they're thinking about greater Minnesota cities

[2:39:27] more because

[2:39:29] our concerns a lot of times are different than the metro.

[2:39:32] And, and I think I heard Marshall say the words like

[2:39:35] sometimes are those funds will get gobbled up by the metro.

[2:39:38] And so we do need advocates that are doing that.

[2:39:42] So I'm not in a position to say that I think that this one should go

[2:39:46] or this one should stay.

[2:39:47] I haven't given enough thought, but I'm struck by the million dollars

[2:39:51] that we got as a direct result of being on the utilities city.

[2:39:55] So I'm going to say

[2:39:57] I'm going to leave it just as it is.

[2:40:02] Any thoughts? Kim.

[2:40:03] All right.

[2:40:04] Having been here the longest of everyone,

[2:40:07] this, I see the benefits of each one of them.

[2:40:10] Some of them are more in one year than the next.

[2:40:13] There is a definite difference between the League of Minnesota cities

[2:40:17] and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota cities

[2:40:19] and what they bring to offer and who they represent and how they do it.

[2:40:25] But the

[2:40:25] only one which is the most reasonable one we have, that overlaps

[2:40:29] in many areas is the Southeast Minnesota League of Municipalities.

[2:40:33] But it's 50 bucks.

[2:40:35] So why would you stay a member?

[2:40:39] And I'm not saying that

[2:40:41] because I'm currently the president.

[2:40:46] That's,

[2:40:49] we were going to drop one.

[2:40:50] That would be the one I would say to drop, but it doesn't cost us anything.

[2:40:54] Hardly. For what they do.

[2:40:55] And they have done, some good things in the last few years

[2:40:59] with, EMS and also, waste.

[2:41:07] Utility, training that they're getting set up.

[2:41:10] And so.

[2:41:15] Those I think are important to our city.

[2:41:17] All of them represent a different aspect.

[2:41:22] Even though they do overlap a little bit, they have,

[2:41:26] enough uniqueness that

[2:41:28] I would stay in,

[2:41:33] I think the one I,

[2:41:36] I question is coalition of utilities, cities.

[2:41:41] I don't know

[2:41:44] that there's that much value added.

[2:41:46] Particularly since their license is gone, it's going to be renewed.

[2:41:50] So, that would be if we're going to eliminate one,

[2:41:54] that would be the one I would eliminate.

[2:42:00] I guess I'll go next.

[2:42:02] I guess that's for we've done.

[2:42:03] I just say again, it's shocking to know that we spent over

[2:42:06] $100,000 on senior memberships when we could be doing that,

[2:42:10] and in my eyes, fire greater things, maybe right here in Red wing.

[2:42:14] And so, I mean, I again, I know that they're doing really good things.

[2:42:18] I gone to a lot of them, but I really would like us to see again

[2:42:21] with the long term things we have going on the wastewater plant.

[2:42:24] I think some people want to that law enforcement center discussion today.

[2:42:28] I really worry about the budget being at a right size level.

[2:42:31] And so I honestly would like us to consider getting rid of the coalition

[2:42:36] and the coalition of utility studies and see what that would mean.

[2:42:40] And had that be a proposal,

[2:42:41] possibly that still this year, I just I see a lot of overlap.

[2:42:46] And, I think Excel is going to be where it's at for a while.

[2:42:50] And I just would like to see what 1 or 2 years of that savings

[2:42:53] would bring.

[2:42:57] Yeah.

[2:42:58] I'm kind of, along the same lines.

[2:43:00] I mean, I, I had no concerns about the coalition

[2:43:05] of greater Minnesota cities when I attended.

[2:43:06] I just think that it's a lot of money.

[2:43:09] For what?

[2:43:10] I can see. Bring them.

[2:43:11] I don't see where there's $1 million.

[2:43:14] It wasn't it.

[2:43:15] I didn't see it in my packet anyway.

[2:43:17] Last night.

[2:43:18] Are you familiar with that?

[2:43:20] Page ten.

[2:43:22] Page ten.

[2:43:24] What did we get $1 million for?

[2:43:26] That's what, Marshall was referring to. The,

[2:43:30] in 2020 or 2021, they

[2:43:32] fund, established the, energy transition.

[2:43:36] And yes, Monticello got some initial grants.

[2:43:39] And we finally, were asked to apply

[2:43:42] and get that grant in 2024.

[2:43:45] And that's the beginnings of that's a coalition use utility cities, right?

[2:43:49] They were instrumental in setting up the program

[2:43:51] and then the legislature, funded the program in 2022 or 2023.

[2:43:56] And then we got the grant in 2024.

[2:43:58] So it's it's all tied into

[2:44:02] what the what the coalition of utility cities

[2:44:05] lobbying for back into the ability is not greater Minnesota cities.

[2:44:09] Correct? Correct.

[2:44:10] Okay. Yeah.

[2:44:12] And I think you mentioned Vicki

[2:44:14] the coalition of Greater Minnesota cities

[2:44:18] when you made that statement.

[2:44:20] No, I said the Coalition of Utilities and Utilities.

[2:44:23] Okay. Then I misunderstood. I apologize.

[2:44:25] So, I mean, I could I could see us

[2:44:28] saving the almost $37,000,

[2:44:33] at this point, and I did.

[2:44:39] I mean, I struggle, I struggle

[2:44:40] with because I think, I think the, the cost for the coalition

[2:44:45] of utility cities is I mean, that's going to come every year

[2:44:49] and we're going to have a plant for utility

[2:44:53] for to 2050 for.

[2:44:56] So the community is going to spend a lot of money on a membership

[2:45:00] that for the most part, I don't know what else they can do.

[2:45:04] I mean is, unless somebody can answer that question, where do we get

[2:45:07] $51,000 rather than benefit, other than, yeah, I'm good.

[2:45:11] If you give me two seconds, I'm

[2:45:12] glad you did, because I feel like I owe the community of biology because

[2:45:17] what the coalition of utility cities does

[2:45:20] is protects the tax base that currently exists.

[2:45:23] Yes, the plant will be there until the end of license.

[2:45:26] What will the taxable value, what taxes roll up will actually

[2:45:30] come to the community?

[2:45:33] That's to be determined.

[2:45:34] The the Coalition to Utility Cities is that voice that pushes back

[2:45:38] against legislative or agency actions or anything else

[2:45:41] that affects the utility valuations.

[2:45:45] Hence the taxes that community receives.

[2:45:47] And just to live in theaters for 25 years, there have been,

[2:45:51] so many instances where it going.

[2:45:57] The coalition utility says because of the way

[2:45:59] its membership is constituted, has been able to push back

[2:46:03] and get legislation either changed, redirected, have ANC efforts

[2:46:09] reviewed to protect the tax base that we have.

[2:46:13] Just keep saying this.

[2:46:14] And I apologize, but if l Excel has a sniffle

[2:46:19] for laying in bed with pneumonia, the implication

[2:46:23] of a small change on utility value has immense ripple

[2:46:27] effects across this entire community, because they are such a huge part

[2:46:31] of our tax base, but basically

[2:46:34] 50, 45 to 40% of our tax base.

[2:46:37] And they have a very

[2:46:39] well-respected,

[2:46:41] business purpose of having their taxes reduced.

[2:46:43] It's something they do each and every year.

[2:46:47] This is kind of your,

[2:46:51] this, membership

[2:46:54] really is an investment in maintaining keeping that tax base.

[2:47:00] Can I ask a follow?

[2:47:01] So does Goodhue County and the school

[2:47:03] district pay it all for that because it obviously affects on the tax impact?

[2:47:07] No, they do not because it's a coalition of utilities cities and the in

[2:47:12] the question comes up because it's come up before we've talked about it

[2:47:18] is do we offer

[2:47:20] do we make the membership broader.

[2:47:23] But then the cities lose control over their specific issues,

[2:47:28] or they get watered down because the counties come in

[2:47:30] and they want to just they tend to want to take over everything.

[2:47:34] And the school district has a different set of,

[2:47:37] of, concerns, obviously, because they're on the per pupil formula.

[2:47:42] So it's just a we've talked about it, but we have expanded that membership.

[2:47:47] Okay.

[2:47:49] Ron, you want to comment,

[2:47:52] as far as utility cities goes, I think, you know,

[2:47:54] maybe we should wait until we have, you know, a firm answer that.

[2:47:58] Yes, they're going to re license.

[2:48:00] They're actually going to go through because they have not received their NRC

[2:48:04] yet. They also, you know, once you get the NRC approval,

[2:48:07] it's going to come back to, to excel, you know, and here's the here's

[2:48:10] what we have to do to operate for those additional 20 years.

[2:48:14] Then they have to go to the Public Utilities Commission

[2:48:17] and say, okay, here's what it's going to cost us.

[2:48:20] Are you going to go, let us have rate return,

[2:48:23] in order to and make a profit on this.

[2:48:25] And if they can't make a profit, you know,

[2:48:28] they would maybe would say no.

[2:48:30] So the one thing the issue I have with, with

[2:48:34] this is I'm a live within your means guy.

[2:48:37] So the way I look at Red Wing and the way Red Wing

[2:48:40] has spent money over the past, the money coming from the nuclear plant,

[2:48:44] we've installed a lot more infrastructure and parks and trails and everything else

[2:48:50] that other cities our size can't because they're not a utility city.

[2:48:56] Right? So what we're asking is where we want to go.

[2:48:58] We want to continue to have a spending binge for 20 more years.

[2:49:02] And then once the plant's done and we know it's going to be done,

[2:49:05] then we want somebody to wean us off.

[2:49:07] And I just have a hard time with that.

[2:49:09] I think

[2:49:09] you should take care of your own city and not have everybody else in the state

[2:49:13] having to, to wean you off.

[2:49:14] So but I think maybe it's premature to, to say

[2:49:18] get rid of that one just until we have, you know, the think is dry

[2:49:21] and that the things with relicensing.

[2:49:26] And as far as the

[2:49:27] coalition of greater Minnesota cities, I'm not sure if of almost $37,000 a year.

[2:49:32] I mean, obviously the biggest one for me is I think of the EMS stuff,

[2:49:36] you know, if they're able to do anything to help us start plugging the holes in

[2:49:40] or getting this service, you know, our ambulance service,

[2:49:44] but I don't I'm not sure if you know that $37,000 would be

[2:49:48] better invested just using in our current ambulance service.

[2:49:51] So I'll go with whatever everybody else wants to do with that one.

[2:49:56] I think the League of Minnesota Cities is is a pretty big advocate for EMS,

[2:50:00] certainly not.

[2:50:03] Yeah. Please do.

[2:50:05] Yeah. Thank you.

[2:50:05] So not necessarily because not all cities have an ambulance.

[2:50:09] And the there is a Minnesota Ambulance Association.

[2:50:12] But the president of that is a private or hospital based ambulance.

[2:50:16] So really the only voice we have inside of that for the legislation

[2:50:21] for our community in our towns is the greater Minnesota cities. So.

[2:50:31] All right.

[2:50:32] I think we heard from everybody.

[2:50:33] Do you want to I know we're getting we're at 759.

[2:50:36] Not that we can finish by eight, but do we want to kind of give

[2:50:38] a final wrap up again on Levy current status I know Chris,

[2:50:43] I don't know if you want to

[2:50:44] do this after that, but just kind of we did have maybe a plan

[2:50:47] for kind of taking items we talked about tonight,

[2:50:50] and then how could we bring that to a next meeting

[2:50:52] so we can get again, kind of another update on the budget.

[2:50:54] Do you want to talk about that first or should we go to the levy.

[2:50:56] Let's go to the stuff okay.

[2:50:58] Current status.

[2:51:02] All right.

[2:51:02] So after a couple of hours here,

[2:51:07] Where we're at currently,

[2:51:10] we're in we're in very good shape

[2:51:12] with where you wanted us to be

[2:51:16] when we started with this back in June.

[2:51:19] And then throughout this process in August and in September.

[2:51:23] Sorry, I don't have my mic on.

[2:51:25] So coming into tonight with all those administrative changes

[2:51:29] and other things, factored in,

[2:51:32] we sat at a 3.25% levy increase.

[2:51:36] One thing that is not shown here is we were also able

[2:51:39] to reduce the fund balance draw to just below $1 million.

[2:51:45] So a reduction to the good on

[2:51:50] I think the two main key metrics

[2:51:52] that you all have decisions to make on,

[2:51:56] with a few additional things from tonight,

[2:52:00] I think it's reasonable to say we could

[2:52:04] make a slight reduction

[2:52:06] that you all are comfortable with to the levy, getting it closer to the 3%,

[2:52:11] and then also reducing that fund balance to even further.

[2:52:15] The big question would be

[2:52:18] to what degree

[2:52:21] do we want to make some of those reductions?

[2:52:22] I think the things I was adding up in my head was,

[2:52:27] reduction of the performance pay.

[2:52:30] We were looking at probably 154,000.

[2:52:33] That's going to be

[2:52:36] now, that's going to be citywide.

[2:52:38] So probably a levy impact of around 100.

[2:52:41] There.

[2:52:45] The reduction of the one position that's going to be around a 10th of a percent.

[2:52:50] So the real question is to what degree do you want us to

[2:52:54] further draw down the levy from the 3 to 5%

[2:52:57] we came into the night with, and then the rest

[2:53:01] being spent on the fund

[2:53:02] balance towards the really big,

[2:53:05] big question.

[2:53:06] I think we would have.

[2:53:09] So you could provide general responses to that right now,

[2:53:12] but it actually is a perfect segway to what we talked about earlier today.

[2:53:15] We could so we've got it.

[2:53:18] I don't know if the actual schedule it's in, the actual staff report,

[2:53:20] the remaining two meetings are the, the,

[2:53:25] special meeting, truth and taxation meeting on December 1st

[2:53:29] and the City Council regular meeting, the adoption of the levy on December 8th.

[2:53:34] We do have,

[2:53:36] obviously council meeting next Monday and then following,

[2:53:38] second meeting in November is the 24th 24. Yes.

[2:53:44] So I don't think we'd have, an easy turnaround for next Monday.

[2:53:49] Maybe it could be,

[2:53:50] but we could kind of recalculate and look at the impacts of these

[2:53:54] for either next Monday or for sure by the 24th,

[2:53:58] and bring back not the entire budget, but just some.

[2:54:02] Here's where we're at.

[2:54:04] Update if you if you wanted to see that rather than

[2:54:09] just crossing your fingers and waiting for the truth and taxation meeting

[2:54:13] so I mean, I think it'd be really appropriate

[2:54:15] to have something on the 24th

[2:54:17] so that we're going into the December meeting with a pretty,

[2:54:20] you know, again, confident,

[2:54:23] clear, you know, idea on what the budget's going to look like.

[2:54:26] So I know I want that, but what what do others think.

[2:54:29] What what kind of do people need I, I want that on the 24th.

[2:54:35] I have a question

[2:54:37] on the, firefighters position.

[2:54:40] Is it 1 or 2?

[2:54:43] Is that decided on? Okay.

[2:54:45] Thank you.

[2:54:49] Yes, please.

[2:54:50] Any update that we can get is always helpful whenever, whenever it's available.

[2:54:55] I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

[2:54:58] Other comments or questions I'll say an update on like where we're at

[2:55:02] with the levy, with the reductions that were brought forth tonight.

[2:55:06] And then you know, you're talking about like fund balance.

[2:55:08] Now draw and fund balance down so much.

[2:55:10] So maybe some information on,

[2:55:13] you know,

[2:55:14] if we bring it down with just a balance and and keep our the fund balance

[2:55:18] the way it is, you know and what we get down

[2:55:21] to with the levy and then we can go from there to see, okay.

[2:55:24] If we, we didn't do as much fund balance

[2:55:27] to bring it down, you know, to get it back to.

[2:55:30] Yeah. I understand what you're saying. Yeah.

[2:55:32] That's fair.

[2:55:33] It's almost on like page 11 where you have all the different proposals and budget.

[2:55:37] If we could have another little bracket with, like, you know, fund balance draw

[2:55:41] or something would be really helpful.

[2:55:42] So yeah,

[2:55:44] I'll read anything else, any other comments

[2:55:46] or we'll move to public comment.

[2:55:49] Okay. Hearing none here.

[2:55:51] I'll move on to number three. Again.

[2:55:53] We have public comment this evening.

[2:55:54] Is there anyone that would like to provide public comment?

[2:55:59] A second time?

[2:56:00] Is there anyone that would like to do public comment?

[2:56:03] I can hear some rattling.

[2:56:05] Yeah.

[2:56:06] Last time.

[2:56:07] Is there anyone in the chamber that would like to do public comment?

[2:56:10] Seeing none, I will adjourn us. Thank you.

City Council Workshop

Agenda

Transcript