All right.
We'll do the official start.
This is November 3rd,
city Council workshop, and we have a couple items.
First workshop item is, wastewater treatment facility plan.
So I will hand it over to Shawn and Kelsey and welcome to our consultants.
Thanks for being here tonight.
Good evening.
Included in your packet is the draft, wastewater facility planning document.
It's, I think just it's 400 pages.
I assume everybody's read that word.
For what? Arsenal's perfect.
Yeah. Okay, great.
Anyway, so we're gonna we've got our friends here from Bolten Menk
that are going to go through a PowerPoint kind of give a high level overview
that should be done in 4 or 5 hours.
And moving on.
Kelsey had a couple things on the timeline she wanted to highlight and
yeah, just
a reminder, this has been sort of a three year process in 2023.
We started with a feasibility study with SCH, and they kind of outlined
some of the needs that we had moving forward.
2024, we had an RFQ for an engineering
firm to do the facility plan and that was selected.
And they spent almost two years working on this plan.
So the first year was a lot of, asset information
gathering, but we had on our at our facility.
And then the next year was planning out the alternatives
and all that sort of thing. So it's been a long time.
They've been working on it.
So we have Jacob Pichelmann
with Bolton Menk, with Ryan Helgardiner, and then Hannah.
Thank you.
Kelsey
Well. Thank you.
It's good to see everyone again.
I think last time we were in April, we did the,
wastewater plant tour, so hopefully that was a good experience for everyone.
And, you get to see, the full extent of the need out there, right?
So that's the goal.
And there's a lot of important decisions that gotta be made here,
by the city council.
So that's what we'll be talking about today.
I know your time is valuable, so I'll try to keep it to, like, 15 to 20 minutes.
And then, if there's any questions along the way, don't hesitate,
to stop me. So.
So what are we talking about as a wastewater facility plan?
As Kelsey stated, you know, this is a about a two year process
that we started in 20, 24, in the spring.
And it's kind of like at this moment.
So what what does the wastewater facility plan Covid 20 planning document?
So we're looking at,
the City of Red Wing needs over the next 20 years that can be,
from a permanent perspective or capacity perspective, basically,
your ability to treat your wastewater over
the next 20 years is what's encompassed in this report.
So, we looked at things like community growth,
that includes your both residential and industrial, projections.
You support, six industrial uses in town at the moment.
Looking at your 20 year design condition and your flows,
your loading capacity at the plant,
and then ultimately looking at your existing infrastructure, your evaluation,
what is your ability to meet those 20 year needs with the existing infrastructure
that you have?
And what kind of improvements do you need to consider, into the future?
So that includes permanent regulations.
That's a big consideration.
You know, your ability to meet your current permit limits
and what possibly could come in the future that could impact the type of processes
you have out there and the type of money that you need to spend to do that.
And then looking at all those types of alternatives,
basically throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks and making
sure there's no stone left unturned, to be thorough in this process.
So you're looking at every possible alternative.
And obviously with that cost analysis, funding analysis, user rate
analysis, all those things that you're going to care about,
and ultimately,
coming into the conclusion of what's
recommended of capital improvements over the next 20 years,
this report is important for more than just that.
It is required, for PCA project approval.
So we need to submit this thing to the PCA for approval.
And that's really the first step of the process, in a long phase
to actually implement improvements, including design and construction
that would occur after this.
So we're still at the planning level,
what you'll be seeing later in this presentation
or planning level estimates, that they will be refined
further as you get into the design and construction phases.
The other thing that this
report does is it's required for being eligible for state funding.
So, this allows you to get on
or state funding lists to be considered for, low interest loan opportunities,
grant opportunities and all those things that, are needed to make this project
affordable for the community.
So diving into, community growth,
just to cover some of the slides, we actually talked about,
the wastewater site when we met at the conference room there.
So reiterating some of the things we already talked about, which is,
make sure you remember some of the important needs here.
So community growth,
when we did it, complete a 2040 community plan, I think in 2019.
So we did use population estimates from that document.
2020 census population of, just under 16,800,
with a 2040 projected population of just under, 18,000.
So what we did for a 20 year planning document is extrapolate
that to 2045, which is 20 years from now.
And it came up with a designed population of just under 18,100.
So that gets baked into, wastewater projections
and your ability to treat that waste, from all your users.
The other thing we did was engage with, the community development department.
It's not just looking at 20 needs.
We wanted to at least, you know, given the constraints
of that existing site, you have to be able to know,
with a little more certainty that, you know, even in 40, 50 years
from now, that that site and support, your potential growth.
So looking at, 20
plus years beyond so undeveloped, properties within city limits,
community development identified something like 450 acres or,
just under 1600 units of, rather than just development.
And there's also areas outside of the city limits that could be potential
for annexation to 675 acres or just under 24,
under residential units, for a total of about 4000 residential units.
So you add all that up?
You're talking in an ultimate population, of over 25,000, potentially.
You know, it's kind of a crystal ball type stuff.
And you don't really know if and when that's going to happen,
but it's at least as part of the decision making process to be able to take that a
number of it.
Okay.
You know, if we build something here, we expect to be the last another 50,
60 years.
Currently this structure has or is this likely to be viable long term?
I think you'll find the answer is yes.
Lastly, as far
as growth for us, we did talk to your industrial users.
You have six permanent industrial users.
Of those, three are significant,
as far as their loadings and inflow contributions.
So the total, as far as, flows, you're looking at eight, 12%
of your overall flows at the plant, which is, the smaller piece of the pie.
But as far as the pollutant loading impacts,
which is really what the wastewater plant is doing. Right.
If you had perfectly clean water coming out of your sewer system,
you could just discharge the river.
The purpose of the plan is to remove the pollutants and, the pollutant
loadings coming from the industrial be for two years, can go 35 to 50%.
So they are a much bigger footprint when it comes to those.
So, we are projecting some growth with industrial contributions
and, overall, a little bit of growth in your flows.
In other words, in the next 20 years.
This is on a map, that we got from community development.
So it just shows those areas to future development.
So the areas to the west are within city limits that that's a 450 acres or so
that could be developed in the area
to the east and east of the high school is that 675 acres,
that is outside of the city limits currently that could be developed.
So all in all, again, kind of a guessing game with
whether or not that's going to happen and when.
But again, we wanted to at least,
think about this for the future.
So getting into some of the history that we talked about in depth last time,
and that was really the
the purpose is getting everyone out there to see these things historical.
Your history and some of the, the precedent that,
you know, you had them at home as far as making improvements.
And it's pretty consistent with any other community.
You know, typically every 20 to 25 years, you're
having to do a major infrastructure project at your wastewater plant.
The original plan was constructed in 1960.
That's 65 years ago.
And over that timeframe, you've had that happen with compliance,
records and maintenance of the plan that's allowed.
That's allowed to last as long as it has remained.
So it's really a testament to the operating uses that we have on hand.
But these things don't last forever.
So again, you're looking at the capital improvements every 20 to 25 years.
So, you know, following that timeline around 1980, 20 years
after the original project, is when you do the next project following
that, it was 1999 to the 2005 timeframe when you did a series of projects.
So another 20 to 25 years.
And then you've done some smaller projects on your, biosolids
digestion site in the last, you know, 10 or 15 years or so.
But, you're in that cycle now, so you're at that point where you're at 20 years
and you really need to start
thinking about planning and designing these things to get it going
and positioning yourself to make these improvements affordable for the community.
Talking about your aging infrastructure.
So again, 20 plus years since your last major project at the wastewater plant.
So in that sense, you have a ton of needs out there,
where the do nothing option is not an option.
And, you're not able to just not do anything.
There has to be action taken to, improve, what you have over there.
At the very least, retirement, aging, critical infrastructure perspective
that set aside other things like permitting
long term growth, ability to support your long term growth.
So I just want to state that up front, doing nothing is not something
that you can really entertain.
So we expect it to serve a slice of, of different components out there.
You structures
in your buried pipe, being out there for 50 to 75 years, you're at 65 years.
You can see that in some of the structures out there, some of the the solving
that's happened over the years,
going through all the freeze thaw cycles through the Minnesota climate.
You're seeing that I mean,
these guys within the last two months did a pretty significant repair
on, trickling in filter cutter because it's a big chunk of concrete
fell off the side and it was, you know, 20 plus grand to be able to fix that.
So those things happen
at an increasing rate as you, wait longer and longer to repair
some of this infrastructure
and you have those, side expenses that you have to take on.
So things like you're building components and systems, roofing,
waterproofing doors, hardware, electrical distribution systems,
those are items
that are usually in that 20 to 30 year range for expected useful life.
And then, things like the process, mechanical and chemical, feed components,
the things that make the plan work and actually treat the buildings
that are in direct exposure
to that wastewater is typically more like a 20 year item.
So, you're right there with a lot of those things.
As far as the overall age.
And then in the last project, because, you know, 20 years of wastewater exposure
with some of the stuff. So,
you know, I like to compare it to your guys's homes or businesses.
Right.
Every 20 years replacing the roof, you're saying your doors are hardware,
your, water heater, your boiler.
All the little systems in your house and the tens of thousands of dollars.
Right.
Take that in a wastewater plant
and it's tens of billions of dollars.
It's the same thing you got, you got to replace these things
as they get old.
So beyond just aging infrastructure,
it's there's other outside factors that are a driving force in this process.
It's permitting and the limitations of the existing plant.
So as far as a permanent perspective goes to PCAs is undergoing
their nutrient reduction strategy that we actually got some news on.
They may be pausing that for a little bit.
We'll see what that actually means.
But you know,
we expect over the next 5 to 10 years that you will have a relationship
that, that will significantly alter the types of processes
you need to have in that plan.
What you have out there right now will not nitrogen.
Another one is total sulfate, for class for your wild rice standards, sulfate.
It is toxic to wild rice,
we suspect is your next permit that you will have a sulfate limit.
There's not really, from a treatment standpoint, anything to do with that one.
That's more of a matter of, you know, getting a variance or something
to kind of kick the can down the road because it's not something
you really treat for.
But, another one to think about PFOA or forever forever chemicals or a hot
button topic that, that probably most of you have heard about at this point.
You know, that's another one
where the PCA is starting to implement their biosolids, strategy.
And now, operators out there are taking samples
for p 500 mile cells to verify where they sit.
You know, and fortunately you're in the lower tier as far as we know.
So, you may not have much implications
for us in your bio, so I'll just it's a good thing.
So the big driver there is really a huge reduction if you get on the nitrogen limit
at that point, the types of processes out there will not work.
The other factor is your existing facility.
So again, your biological treatment process is limited.
Not just in what they can treat, but also the space that it takes up,
you can't accommodate the growth that you would,
possibly foresee with the existing processes out there.
There's no room to build the same thing that you have.
You can rehab it.
You can construct, new in its place, but you're not expanding that process in
any substantial manner that would account for your growth potential.
So with that, you have a small site.
It is a four acre site.
It's sandwiched between the Mississippi River and a railroad.
There's very limited space out there.
And it's limited to three miles of storage.
You know, the operators are having to haul off 20% of your biosolids
each year to other communities because there's no room to the storage
at the tanks to do it, and there's no way to build new ones.
Other issues, including floodplain, access,
issues, getting to the plant during flood conditions, could be address
and code compliance issues, especially in your biosolids digestion process where,
there's a ton of work and expense associated with separating that out.
So it means, code compliance or fire protection.
So, variety issues with the existing plant.
So getting it
into general alternative is to kind of take a setback at high level.
The next slide will get a little more granular for the types of alternatives we,
looked at.
But just at a high level, you know, the first thing we want to look at is
constructing new technologies on the existing site.
You know, you have a process that takes up a lot of room.
It's very efficient.
And what it does, it's good for the limits you have to meet now.
But if you look at future amendments are going to be able to do that.
So, being able to identify new processes that are going to support
your foreseeable roles and also be expandable is to allow you to to build off
and and build a more infrastructure, which apparently can't do,
and then have that infrastructure meet your current and future needs.
The other component with this is maximizing reuse
of existing infrastructure.
So a big cost savings is you do have stuff on that site
that has value that you can repurpose into new things.
And that saves money the long term versus this next alternative
that we'll talk about.
So constructing a new facility, an alternative site.
The main benefit with that is that it gives you,
you know, surplus space, to think about for future growth,
whether or not you needed it, you know, so at least we wanted, to take a hard
look at what that looks like,
so you can see the costs are and realize that it's pretty expensive.
We've got a plan.
Largely due to the demands of your wastewater.
You have to plan on it to a different location.
It's been a lot of the money and piling in, pummeling us.
And overall, you'll see that it is by far the highest expense.
Other options that, we entertain as a part of,
the facility plan is, you know, what it cost to rehabilitate what you have.
We are. You said this is not really viable.
Staff will do nothing.
It's also really not viable to rehabilitate what you have because,
a you don't have, the space for expansion.
And you're also allowing us to to process, you're not able to do that with,
there's also the issue with the future terminal limits.
If you get a limit in the next ten years, that investment
you've made in your existing process is the same investment.
It's, it's a poor investment.
So we would not, suggest investing
significant dollars and just redoing what you have.
You may have to, address things as they come up over
the next few years, but to build what you have is not a good idea.
Yeah.
Option here is regionalization that we talked quite a bit about,
the last time around.
Excuse me.
So we, we took a hard
look at this, and there's some practical engineering issues, actually, Regionalize,
you know, there's also, you know, the business, a wastewater.
Right?
And you'll be able to plant that supports your community,
your growth, taking care of your needs.
You know, as soon as you regionalize, you become,
often a customer of a sanitary sewer district,
you know, you get out of the wastewater business in that sense,
and you lack control, setting your own rates,
you know, doing the types of improvements that you want to do.
So there's that issue, you have,
you know, the engineering issue is the goal.
And where you stand, who is going to be contributing to that plan?
There's not a good, sop for that,
you know, relative to communities around you.
So from those reasons, regionalization is not, considered by a player,
it doesn't mean that you can
create capacity and accommodate growth for someone else to develop in your career
or there's
which to you, the future, but
you're not looking to build a new plant somewhere outside of the city.
And it's just as an analysis and get it there and then have to,
construct this answer.
This is a district that would still be a customer.
So for those reasons, regionalization is not considered
the best option.
So getting into the alternatives analysis, we won't spend a ton of time
on on the processes themselves, but just kind of,
clumping that in a few different buckets here.
So the one, is the rehab, your existing plans.
And then an alternative to two through six, is kind of,
one bucket of getting a new technology on the existing site.
And we looked at five different processes.
That would help reduce the footprint of the treatment
technology and allow you to,
provide more space for the future of the structure.
And then the last alternative is also through the seven,
which is relocating the plant to an entirely new site.
So, there's two really components to this, right?
It's the costs, which might have some sticker shock on
some of those tasks right across the board,
even if some of the rehab alternative is not just to rehab what you have.
There's also the evaluation criteria, you know,
regardless of the cost, do these improvements meet our needs?
So strictly from a cost basis, there's kind of three tiers.
The first tier is a rehab.
You're looking at something like $60 million to rehab what you have.
And again, I'll remind everyone this is planning level estimates.
We have a construction estimate of just over 42 million.
There's a 20% contingency just to consider whether they're running the ones we have
at this stage of the game.
Once you get into design, you consider narrowing that contingency
and getting some other numbers.
But I think, for the process, that's a good estimate.
And then saw cost, added on top of that for a total of 60 million.
Next tier is that, you know, building new technologies on the existing site.
The alternatives two through six, you know, they're all, within a fairly
narrow cost range, 140 to $150 million proximately.
And then the last year is moving the plant altogether to a new site,
$250 million estimates, or, costs escalate quite a bit,
but you have to convey that wastewater internally somewhere else
and then and build a brand new plant and then not incorporate
some of your existing infrastructure in that plant.
Yeah.
Can I just ask two questions really quick before you go on?
Yeah.
The, where it says B, an R and B
are assumed that's the, the type of facility site.
Yes. Right. Okay.
And then can you tell me what O and R stands for.
Peace of Omar's operation maintenance and replacement costs.
Thank you. Yeah.
So looking at the evaluation criteria, you know, clearly,
alternative, the $160 million is by far the least expensive, right?
Is that the best idea?
Answer no, because the only thing that really does for you
is, is it meets your current permitting, and it has relatively low.
And our LMR costs for your existing plant,
as far as its ability to meet future permitting, its cost is very, very low.
It's reliability, ease of operation, fairly low expandability.
It uses the site very low and capital costs.
It's a little counterintuitive, but that's also very low,
because assuming that
eventually you will get more permanent or more stringent requirements,
you will have to make an investment in one of those other options,
in which case you need all the money you have.
The problem is it's more or less sunk, and over the life
cycle of these improvements is going to be the least cost effective.
So that
is the lowest for other, all set of attorneys,
alternatives, 2 to 6, you know, very.
And they're pros and cons relative to one another.
The space utilization and how big they are, their ability to meet future
urban limits, all those things, fluctuate based on the prices you look at.
But ultimately, what we came to is that alternative five to the bar,
which we'll talk about on the next slide is the best alternative.
As far as overall scoring up and down, especially when it comes
to the expandability and utilization of space on that site.
And then alternative seven, scored,
kind of the mid-range overall because it is, you know,
you would have the ability to meet current and future permit limits.
You have to rely on the process that you would build on a new site.
It would be expandable, but capital costs are very high.
And then you're also paying extra money to of that to different sites.
There's more energy costs and, more costs in general for that.
Yeah.
So why does number three mean future permitting?
And then the rest don't
the rest do.
So alternative three is an advanced in process of a membrane bioreactor.
Essentially you're incorporating
a membrane into your treatment process that filters out the waste.
Essentially, you can get down to very, very low organics, very low solids.
It's just it generally produces a higher quality effluent.
It's it's overkill for what you need based on the expected
permit limitations that we received from the previous part of this process.
So it does for well as for future programing, because of that.
But it's also the more expensive it's also harder to operate.
There's maintenance and repair associated
with a number of replace it every 3 to 5 years.
It's all those things that make it less desirable.
Thank you.
So for the highs.
And that said, before, you know, in the sense of the alternative, 5 or 6
and seven is still a good score.
You know, you're able to nature and the future determines that alternative.
You know,
the questions with kind of how the scoring plays,
maybe
just for like when we talk to our, you know, people in the community.
And of course, I'm no expert on the alternatives and different things, but,
two through six like these are different
like chemical or biological ways of dealing with weight loss.
Or is that the most general way to, like describe it?
Yeah, they
are all biological treatment processes and they're all slightly different.
Okay. Different way to do the same thing.
That all have pros and cons about how they lay out, how big they are
or how effective they are.
Yeah.
That have kind of the message, you know,
and then from the large big picture perspective,
you know, the cost estimating is probably within the margin of error here.
You know, they're all I would say pretty close.
I would confidently say that alternative is reason
the most expensive for the membranes.
I would probably say alternative to that.
A big process with a lot of things, would be more expensive than alternatives
4 or 5 and six.
So we're very good at stating relative costs.
I think, you know, 140 range is a good,
estimate for what you have in the bill builder, across the board.
So thank you.
And your and then you would be cited in some of the based on allegation
of our commercial or industrial like even waste what they're what works.
But I did kind of need to clean those or whatever it is for that.
I don't know if that question makes sense.
Yeah.
That's what you're kind of determining which process is most appropriate is that.
Yeah.
Like a good chunk of the report that indicates, itself to, you know,
projecting out your floors and loads and that analyzes all the alternatives.
So we're we're using the same baseline setup for the treatment of the waste
for each alternative.
And each alternative varies in its ability to do that,
if that makes sense.
That helps a lot.
But it's
any other questions or.
Okay, so I figured this would be an interesting slide
because we could start, if you have further questions,
not to move on.
So just getting into a little bit more on the recommended alternative
alternative devices and the biological area to deliver a bath.
And this was selected,
largely, due to its footprint and ability
to expand and a lot of the flexibility with the operations.
And it seems very specifically well-suited for your site
and the space limitations you have.
So it's for the best as far as using the site
and being able to dedicate space for future expansion.
That's important in this process.
There's also and you'll see in the next figure with, some preliminary
site, layouts that, we have space allocation
for future things that you might need, and you could be more reactive
to the future with space on the site that you couldn't,
choose what to do with, that includes additional miles of storage.
That can be tertiary treatment processes
if you're having an even more stringent limits.
So, lots of benefits as far as space consumption.
You know, and and lastly, competitive as far as capital
and our costs, with the other alternatives on the low end.
So with all that in mind, you know, this was identified as the best
alternative for your site in your needs.
We have other facilities we built that are, but,
there's four other in the state.
So it's, it's a tried and true process that's been around for 25 years.
And it has worked well, in with wastewater
that's very similar to years, Northfield probably the best example.
And we took the opportunity to tour that.
I think it was last year by this time,
to, to see how it works. Right.
Because we knew
this was going to be a competitive alternative, with the space layout
considerations. So,
you know,
it's difficult for, you know, investing in something that's brand new.
Either you're not going out on a level, something that no one else has done
before is also an important aspect of this.
And there's four other communities
that are very similar to you that have also built this structure,
and this will handle anything proposed coming down from the LPC.
Yeah. So not anything. Right.
So as far as we know.
Well that's right. I mean anything that they're looking at.
No. This land. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.
Particularly nitrogen and phosphorus limits that you already have.
If there's some you know
I can't predict 20 years from now, we're looking for three, right.
But the big thing is having that space to do stuff with later on,
when you get more strategic urban elements that are in a lot of our right.
So this if, if we need to ask for a
I'm calling in the past I know it's not that nitrogen right now
will this handle the more stringent criteria for nitrogen.
Yeah.
So they answer that.
So like there has been at the, the state regulatory levels, recent developments,
even in the last week where they are, pausing the nitrogen, regulation
and water quality standards for now, we don't know how long it's going to last
to be next week.
And I wonder when we're going to pick it back up.
So the solution is, is will receive the nitrogen
when that happens is, I think, anyone's guess.
It could be five years out of ten years from now.
But when that happens, it's going to drive
what you need to do on that site. And,
that process, can be suited.
You could you could build it and now or not remove nitrogen
and then add on to it later to remove the nitrogen.
You could build it all now
and then keep cells off line to be able to dedicated for nitrogen later.
There's some flexibility with this alternative
as well as it relates to the margin that is important to
ask your question.
Yeah. Okay.
And will it eliminate 100% of the nitrogen or is that not
possible? No.
So the proposed limit that we got.
So it's part of the effluent limit request that we had to the PCA, is important
because we wanted it to have them tell us, okay, what are we looking at in the next
five years?
Is a 7.7mg/l.
It's pretty.
All this process can be removed below that.
It will not 100%, but permit regulations
that require, you know, 100.
You know, since
I think we're good.
I’m alreay going long aren’t I?
So sorry.
So I will try to do some of this stuff along with the other questions.
Yeah.
This is the proposed site layout that we came up with.
I mean, you can see the stuff in the red is important.
That's existing infrastructure that we would either reuse or repurpose.
So that's a lot of, infrastructure that would save money, versus a
alternative set on which you would have to build all the new,
and then on the blue, I mean, the structure is, is new.
The back process would be on the east side
there with some of those little, square cells.
And then, in the middle, you have some additional clarifiers
pumping and, biosolids to water.
So that actually we've done that before.
We're also going to be building one. Building two.
Those are all buildings, that you build,
you know, and the other thing,
that's important to, to look at with this is the space for future.
So it's a little tough to see, but there's a black dotted, area now
where we see that there's space allocation for future things.
And in multiple different spots.
There's other alternatives where the whole site is just to clean up
by what you would have to build on day one. Right.
And there was no possibility for this.
This alternative gives you, additional space.
I have a question.
How do you how do you do the construction on something like this
and keep the existing plant running?
Great question.
Yeah, that's another, advantage of this alternative is that,
you can, you know, currently a good chunk of the existing plant
currently doesn't do much, actually, the intermediate,
pumping station in the clarifiers is in the RBC process.
Could all be taken offline and effectively.
That doesn't really change, with what you're producing out there at the moment.
And so this this alternative allows you to keep your trickling filters online
during construction, which would be needed.
And then, you would build this infrastructure and get it up and running.
And then you would have to go back and deposit filters later.
So it's important to keep the process up and running.
And, you know, the smaller footprint is is an advantage because it allows
you more flexibility to keep more stuff online.
How would this do?
We have a storage issue right now the solids.
Yeah this is taking more solids out.
Or how does this compare to what we,
we would project and more solids production in this process.
It's removing more waste lagoons. Right.
Little more efficiencies and it's rules.
Therefore you generate a little more waste.
So the other good thing about this alternative,
is that it's completely repurposing your, digestion complex there.
It's that, building in the red, to the west side of the site.
There's multiple enforcer roles.
So what we would propose is building new primary clarifiers for the Baff system,
and he would convert your existing primary clarifies that have some complications.
So I would say they're obsolete at this point in that design.
We would convert that to your actual sludge storage.
Now you really don't have so you'd have, something like, I think 700,000
or more gallons of additional sludge storage with its primary clarifiers.
And then the digesters would also be converted
into the rolling process and also used for additional storage
so that that whole complex system do it in two different things.
Is now all dedicated to biosolids through land.
And in that space, just to the west of that,
could be dedicated for future storage.
You know, one thing
operators do, like, is a whole years worth of biosolids storage.
Right now, you probably wouldn't have that.
Probably more like 180 days.
But there would be space to do a little more if you wanted or needed.
Any questions?
Getting in to another interesting slide.
So let's talk costs.
User costs.
So estimated capital costs at $142 million.
Obviously not a small price to, we do, you know, a basic financing analysis.
This is not a user rate analysis.
This is to get you in the ballpark, per year
or equivalent residential unit of what?
The improvements would ultimately cost the community.
So we make some assumptions on, you know,
amortization, 2.5% interest rate, 20 year loan term.
So capital improvements, average that emerges EIS is $9.1 million per year.
You add your own, and our expense on top of that at roughly 6 million
or the $15 million in mean
you would need to pass it on to your users.
This assumes no grain financing to cover any of that.
Right?
So looking at kind of the worst case scenario condition here, you know, you
would be we'll talk on the next slide, but eligible for multiple grant, funds.
But anyway,
to make the comparison here, your current monthly average sewer bill,
based on 600 cubic feet or roughly 4500 gallons per month,
it is $48 a month for the average user.
The affordability threshold.
So this is what the state uses to determine the grant.
Eligibility is taken as 1.4% of your median
household income, based on your current, average.
My, that would be up to about $76 a month.
Means that you would need to raise your rates up to $76 a month
in order to access affordability based grant that we'll talk about
as one part of the money that you would access to pay for, as in structure.
So you need to show the state
that you are raising your rates to accommodate this debt service.
And then the past a certain point,
you will become eligible for other parts of the money,
to take the worst case scenario as a comparison there.
So if you did all the improvements with no grant financing whatsoever,
you would be looking at about $180 a month per residential user,
versus the $48 that they currently pay the 200 plus percent increase.
Right.
So the goal within an financing scenario is that,
any dollars that the project generates
over your affordability threshold, you're wanting to, you know, cover that, right?
You know, if the state says you can afford 1.4%, that's what
you don't want to pay more than that, right?
So that's where the grant, programs can keep getting that little,
let's do that.
So haven't we been increasing the rates
to be able to do this where we, frankly,
so that a $48 increase in your Kelsey,
which is understandably in
person,
that's our 2025 fee schedule for that $40.
We're proposing another 6% increase for 2026.
We are in the process of redoing
our rate study at this time, to see where we're at.
Then. Okay. Thank you.
And since 2020, increasing the rates from 6% a year to try to get us closer
to that affordability threshold, planning for these major improvements.
Perfect. Thanks for that.
Yeah. It's not an uncommon rate.
I mean, your rates are still
I would call a relatively low compared to other communities.
That's one slide I forgot to add is maybe a comparison
to where other folks are paying.
But essentially any community that does a large infrastructure project
ends up paying up to their affordability or a little higher.
You know, so, you know, usually when you see communities with lower rates,
just because they haven't done a project in a long time, they're do free.
So, you know, $76 is not you know, it's a lot of money, right?
That's not you know, it's not nothing.
Right.
But, you know, that's what the state thinks is affordable,
based on where you're at in the community.
So what what percentage of projects
get the grant money to, to keep it in 76?
In our case, $76.40.
It's a yeah, it's a ballpark.
It's a competitive scoring process.
So we'll talk more about the funding.
But you get to submit and, your project to be placed on the project priority list
within the clean water revolving Funds and within Public Facilities Authority.
And then you become on a list of, you know, 4 or 500 projects
that you're competing with for the same pot of money.
You know, if you have project needs that are over your 40 million,
you are eligible for that money.
There's that that's, you know, within certain it's just whether or not
a legislature appropriates, a lot of money to cover, state's needs.
And if your project is ranked high enough and that a dotted line is below
or you're listed and you were eligible to receive that money, and usually it is
claimed to be a waiting game.
And the key here is positioning the project.
So you're in a spot on that list where and when
that money is available, you're able to utilize it and strike.
And then as part of our contract with both Bolten Menk that you're
helping us again with the funding and the grants in that process.
Yeah, that's that's what we do.
We have a dedicated funding team.
That's all they do is help with these types of, programs.
You know, I would say, you know, I'm a little bit, I guess, is that,
you know, to, to make you know, our company has by far
the most, coverage as far as aid programs in the state.
You know, so we're very well versed in and these programs
are not to get you money.
So that's definitely something we will be helping with
and have been helping with in other projects, including, the tennis
station and, drinking revolving fund money
that I think is being processed here shortly, for approvals.
And the Soren's Bluff project as well.
It got some EPA grant dollars.
So we help with all that.
Thank you.
So a little bit more on the funding.
So obviously the the goal here is to make sure
project is affordable for the community.
So, you know, another piece of this is if you can implement projects in phases
that can be helpful to break off chunks of it because you could be
you can have multiple phases of eligibility for some of these programs.
So, you know, with the nature of the improvements
you're looking at, you probably looking at
maybe up to three projects that we've talked about with city staff.
You know what?
What we didn't talk a lot of the details as well.
Look at the baked in those cost estimates.
But there is work at the main
limitation that we would have, you know, 4 to $5 million.
There's a sewer line project at the Levee Park, to address any issues.
And then there's the wastewater planning improvements.
I would expect if there's three solid projects out of here.
You know, within the hundred and 42 million that you saw.
So funding opportunities, like we talked,
the, the PFA, that the Public Facilities Authority is the, government program.
They repairs, these programs.
So a lot of revolving fund is, is launched.
Oh interest loan program.
So they offer 20 to 30 year, loan terms.
Right now, interest rates are usually hovering in that 2 to 3%.
So we would have to that percentage to,
cultivate some of the, the cost.
The other programs here we're getting into the grants is the point
sources and implementation grants.
So that's that program specifically.
There for if a community gets a more stringent limit, like nitrogen,
for instance, you would likely be eligible to dip it into this program.
You know, it's the same thing. Okay.
You need to be a nitrogen limit.
And you go, okay, well, you tell us, do this.
You need money to do it.
That's what those programs for us,
the thing the legislature did
pass higher caps on these programs,
which can be a double edged sword because, you know,
that means the projects at the very top are eligible for even more money.
And maybe that dotted line, calls that up a list, a little bit
if, if less projects, you know, more of the, the bonds.
But, overall, you know, it's a good thing that you're able to access more money
through leasing, potentially up to $12 million, which I wouldn't
be fully eligible for based on the major improvements that we're talking about.
The other one is the water infrastructure
fund or with that's the affordability based grant program.
So as soon as you hit that affordability threshold or higher on your debt service
for the project, that's where a grant like this can kick in up to $10 million,
which you would be eligible for based on the cost estimating.
So, you know, I fully expect you're eligible for $22 million
between those two programs.
Based on what we're talking about today.
The real challenge is actually getting access to those funds
and and position yourself to be, in the driver's
seat to get it all sponsored and competitive in other projects.
So that's where you got to, you know,
be shovel ready, essentially.
And, and show that you're making efforts
towards, you know, doing the project.
And there's other grants and funds available for us besides those two.
Those are the two major programs within the Public Facilities Authority.
The other ones that were on this list.
Here are the special appropriations program set that funding, that's,
direct bonding requests that you could make to the legislature,
to be named in a bonding bill for a requested amount of grant.
And then there's federal funding that we could go after.
Potentially,
so you can USDA
is the typical, federal funding source.
You're actually too big to qualify under that program.
That would be part of the tried and true federal sources throughout,
through the feds, which has a grant alone that has a 10,000 population cap.
So, you actually wouldn't be eligible for USDA funding in this case?
Trying to rack my brain.
I don't I'm probably missing something.
I could get that. Thanks. Yeah.
So it's about funding.
That's a big one where, you know, often you can do the math on the project.
Costs, subtract off the grant eligibility that you would expect
through points, sources with programs, and then you get,
you know, maybe a pot of money that you're still above your affordability.
That's where, you know, every request for that makes sense
and is pretty defensible, you know, with those that is competitive, right?
I mean, you know, not everyone gets direct, appropriation every year.
All these requests don't, get approved.
So you get to come up with a good narrative, right as a community, as a
as it's been a very well run on this is you haven't had to rely on other programs.
You don't have any existing debt right
now, and you're taking care of the needs of this project long term.
Well, that's a pretty good story.
You also have a lot of industry involvement is supported by this plan.
And, you know, there's a growing community
and input room to grow, you know, as another community
wants to come over the wastewater towards you and be a customer of Red Wing.
You could potentially accommodate that.
So and those are all things like can get it
baked into the narrative of trying to get those right appropriate as well as
we help with the application.
So we work with you guys on
lastly a couple other minor ones.
You a climate resiliency grant.
There's some money out there that could be eligible.
So we're in a small practice and a green project that involved in support of.
So basically incorporating green elements into the into the design
that can can cost to, to do those things but
also open up some grant eligibility.
Those are smaller chunks.
Usually that's considered
you know, the questions that are funding.
Yeah.
Mr. mayor, council member staff.
Thank you. Brian Helgardner.
I did want to mention that we again, to brag a little bit.
We do have a very robust,
dedicated following team that will look at every avenue out there.
We have worked, on multiple projects in the past to city staff, and,
and we've been successful on Main Street, other projects to lift station.
There's a lot of things out there that we have been successful on,
and we will continue to look at every afternoon out there.
We also have a lobbyist on staff now.
So we certainly would be able to help with any lobbying, things like that.
I know there's been some concern over some of the regionalization
that's going on out there, but we at this point are,
in a spot where they're not necessarily ahead of the game on that.
They're there to talk about it.
But there's not been an actual plan on how to document.
We're actually sitting in a pretty good spot or the city sitting in a good spot
right now.
I think it is important to, to what Jake said about,
forwarding as much of the project as you can and getting a shovel ready.
So getting your borings, getting your design, getting your things,
kind of some of that up.
Pretty stuff ahead of time done,
I think at that point you will fully be in the driver's seat.
I don't think there is any concern over that regionalization.
So, I just want to mention that again, because that's a major component, right?
The cost is pretty low.
You look at it and say, oh, wow, that's a lot of money.
And it is.
So let's try to do it all down.
And I think we can certainly all of this, I just want to
thank you.
Last night it took about 50 minutes.
So sorry.
So just getting into lastly project schedule.
What are the timelines here?
So the facility plan, we finished here in October.
It's in draft form.
So there's a little bit of work to do with,
to add some of those PCA forms for the project priority
list applications that will enable that as you get on the funding list.
I look at the thing, we're here today at the council workshop talking about it,
and then ultimately on the public hearing will need to be, scheduled,
as part of the facility with that approval process,
along with the council resolution to adopt this plan
and, you know, we'll talk with staff about what is the best time to do that.
But any time between essentially December and February, you can do that for
the facility plan needs to be submitted to the PCA by March 6th of 2026.
So we are ahead of the game as far as the season goes.
So the other piece is the funding.
So, the the IEP submittal is due June of next year
and we will help with that and get that submitted.
And that puts you on the list for competitive scoring and placement.
And I ultimately get it published in the fall of each year.
So you'll see where you rank, likely
in October or November of 2026.
And that helps you kind of start
the decision making process and some of these other things. So,
and then these
requests are typically odd number of years.
I say typically because that what's used to be normal
and I don't know that there's anything normal anymore, a bonding bill was passed
earlier this year and a number of years, and it's only an even number of years.
But, you know, we are on top of those, regular requests.
You know, if there's some new exhibit next year, you know, we will help with that.
But formally, it would be a number of years.
So as early as ‘27, and then, like Brian said,
there's no benefit in waiting.
It's a lose. Lose to wait.
You're prolonging, the construction rate, which has only go up
and and you're not actively positioning yourself,
to be in the driver's seat for some of some of the funding opportunities.
So there's no benefit in waiting to, begin design.
You know, you can get going on this on a little seminary, desires next year.
And then position yourself to get plans
submitted in, in the final design later on.
So, you know, the message is don't wait, because there is no benefit to doing that.
And then lastly, construction, you know, once you are, once you convert,
when you receive all that funding that you need to make it affordable.
You're talking about probably a three year construction
project out in a wastewater plant by itself.
So best case scenario, you know, you get on those funding lists next fall,
you make a request potentially in 27,
you work on design elements over the next two years,
you know, your positioning yourself for,
construction project again as early as 2028,
with the completion of something like 2031, you know, if there's delays in
receiving that funding, which are typical, can take years to secure the funding.
You know, that's where we're showing a little more, or,
you know, a wider range for that construction phase,
because you're not going to proceed with the project until, you know,
you have the funding.
We probably then the funding.
So key goals is be proactive in the position in funding opportunities,
the years, implement these projects in a manner that implements
it immediately and to me is very critical in this process. So
the ahead
I want immediate questions. There we go.
How much design is going to cost to design
and approximate.
Great question.
I don't know, I we're not that far, I guess, you know,
part of that we'll, we'll put together a proposal,
and work with staff on that to identify what that scope in a few years.
You know, if you go back to.
Soft costs so that 18.5%,
you know, includes a lot of things, includes all the preliminary engineering
or geotechnical work and includes the facility plan and includes
engineering design, you know, so when it's all said and done, and so cost
like engineering or looking at an 18.5 or
so, the 142 as of now is turnkey.
132 million is
you hand is the keys and everything is done.
Yeah. That includes without inflation.
That included a $2,025 with a 20% contingency.
So thank you. Yep.
Thank you Joe I've got two different time things that I'm curious about.
So, when you were talking about
it's standard to have delays and so on and so forth.
I heard you also talk a lot about 20 years,
and then I heard that, you know, the
the plan was built in the 60s.
And, you know, whenever I've gone through there, it's like a horror film.
Know how y'all do it?
So I'm curious, is there
is there wiggle room in what we're doing right now
for those potential delays that are that may or may or may not happen?
I mean, help, help me understand that
it's you're still functional, you're still working.
Right. And it needs to be done.
And there is no kicking the can down the road.
Understand all of that.
And if there are I mean, talk me about that.
You just said the word delay kind of a lot of flags went off in my head.
Yeah, I mean that that's a risk, right?
I mean the delays you can't really help, right?
I mean, you're waiting around to position yourself for the funding and
strike when you have is right.
I think if you take a years to accomplish that and
and all those years, you still have a plan around,
you still have an old plan at 65 years old that hasn't been,
you know, touched to a major degree in 20 years
where things break down and you have to fix it.
It's not on a column.
It feels like every project I do
these days, you know, by the time you are ready to do it,
one major piece is a plan breaks down and they had to do an emergency.
Your parents spend a lot of money.
That happens all the time because that's the nature of what you're dealing with.
The older the show must go on, must treat wastewater.
So there may be unexpected expenses
where Kelsey has to stand up here in a future meeting and say,
hey, we got to repair this because it broke down.
There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.
That will likely happen.
What that is, I don't know.
I mean, I just mentioned, you know, a couple months ago,
2 or 3 months ago, where the clear trickling filter cover
that's been identified as something that needs to go,
a major chunk of concrete
fell off the side of the cover, you know, navigating emergency repairs.
That entire contractor to do it. And it wasn't cheap.
You know, those things are going to happen.
Okay.
The other, the other item that I'm curious about is that we just got out.
I was inside, this last week, and
I'm curious about, like, the, the population, for example,
you know, you talk about developable, developable land
and if we were to, let's just say all of that land got out, developed
and we did increase the population by that amount.
And there were other conversations that happened, like, for example,
doing infill projects and increasing our density.
And we rezone to we've done a bunch of different things.
Let's say, for example, our population does spike
because we are able to do this unit.
So how does that
how does that affect our plant.
Does it do you understand what I'm asking.
Yeah. Currently the existing plant.
Yeah. Did I hear the weeds a little bit.
But the there's a wide range of flows that a plant is has to treat for.
It's kind of the flow coming in
in the middle of the night in the middle of the winter,
which is a lot less of the flow in the middle of summer
when we get to the kind of I and I and, and flooding events going on.
So you have to push a lot of flow or a little flow through that plan.
Right now, on average, the flow of that land is roughly 50%.
Its capacity, but it can pick up to 100% during certain times.
Turning where I was going on that.
Go with the residential.
I mean, the new alternative has enough capacity
built in for managing it because it's one of the smaller options.
We have the ability to even expand it further.
Okay. Yeah.
This specific alternative, you know, and design, we reevaluate
all these flows and the labor hours to, to get the latest and greatest deal.
Right.
You know, this is data through 2024 that we looked at some of the changes
in the next two years.
That will be the data
that we design and around, along with projecting off 20 years from now.
But the intent is to size that land.
You know, at least right now, to handle that is 20 years and needs based on what,
you know, if there's something super unexpected, that happens and,
you know, you know, there's room in, in this alternative
specifically to expand the process, add more cells to accommodate,
and the discussion really is okay to build that sort of now,
in anticipation of that happening,
build the structure
and then not populate those cells with all the media
and the things that go in there that cost money.
Or do you wait and build what you need now and then build more structures later
that that's really the discussion about expansion with this alternative.
And I think you've covered that with us.
And is there a major
the cost difference for
the the price that, that
we've been talking about is without that expansion, is that correct,
or is that with the expansion that so what we assumed actually,
getting into the weeds a little bit too, but it's a ten by five cell system.
We worked with vendors that, provide this equipment and to size
that for the flow is not rejection is what we showed on on that site plan.
And what we had built into some of the costs are building
additional cells on that so you could accommodate growth.
So, you know, it makes you could do an analysis
for the building, make a lot of sense to probably build a structure now
and then, just not spend the money to populate that structure than wait
till you have that growth to add that later.
If it's kind of a design level discussion where we'll have to kind of dig
in the weeds on that, to figure out what are the best solutions.
But, there's ways, to address it.
Thank you. Yep.
One quick question.
So 142 million.
And when I look at your funding opportunities, there's 22
million in grants.
And that's it
pretty much. Right.
Just I just want to understand.
So then we have to,
we going to be taking out a loan
for 120 million for this, give or take.
That would be the the difference.
The other thing would be the, special appropriations bond requests,
where you could request additional funding help the argument
and being that you have 22 million that you would be eligible
for based on the programs that exist today, it's just a matter of position.
You for them if you are eligible for that money.
If it doesn't,
even with the 22 million, meet your affordability needs.
If that number is not close to $76 a month, that's 90,
you would still have excess funds.
Or I think you have a pretty good argument to request that from the state.
Through, a bond was to be approved, you have to put out a very good
narrative of why you deserve that money and not someone else.
But that's the other tools usually, that communities will use,
to get finance and get additional funding from.
Thank you.
Okay, so that's a pretty good segue into your homework.
Okay.
That is
when we talk about funding and in, in as council person
had mentioned, there's a pretty significant gap there.
And when we start talking about, special appropriations
from the state or federal level or whatever those are,
those conversations go a lot farther when you folks
are having those with our elected leaders, with our legislative leaders,
they do from us.
But we would certainly give you all the information to speak.
Okay. Unless you want to go.
One of the ways Kelsey can teach you all about loading and,
some issues, whatever.
Any other questions for right now running total best case
is, is our rates dropped from $20 a month
or between a billion variable cost
to get to our affordability.
I think the best case is you end up paying around your current affordability.
You know, the other thing with that
is that it involves two year and it goes up year over year,
and the data that they use, changes each year.
So as your mind goes up, that $76 is going up each year too.
So by the time you're ready to lock that, you know, financing agreement
in, you might be playing with those different numbers.
So another time, a little time is of the essence.
Well, again, and we appreciate you coming.
I know we first started talking about this.
I heard about it when I served on the council three years ago.
So now we're kind of getting to that next up.
But it sounds like we've got some more stuff,
but I think it's good, obviously
to keep it at the forefront and get more specifics now.
And we appreciate you coming up and answering questions.
And it looks like we have some work to do.
So thanks for having us. Appreciate it.
Yeah. Thank you.
Do people need a break you know anybody okay.
Well we're going to take a five minute break and now probably go into a ten
minute break.
But let's be back at 608.
All right.
Again we will go to to be now our proposed 2026
levy and budget of our workshop this evening.
Yeah. Thanks. Good to see everybody again.
I don't think this meeting will have a shock.
That was the last meeting. Yeah, thankfully.
But we're going to dictate from where we were basically a week ago.
We're going to talk about a few positions and keep grinding at that, property tax
levy to get it from 4.99 down to something more palatable for the city council.
We'll talk about, so changes that.
We'd like the city council to consider some other information.
We like to provide you because questions that have arisen about it
and then briefly, just a few administrative changes
we made in wrapping up
with where we are at with the levy at the conclusion of this meeting.
But with that, I'm going to turn it over to Tony for the PowerPoint.
All right.
So kind of starting off where we left,
last last Monday evening, we got through
quite a few of these positions and several other requests.
We got kind of pressed for time at the end.
So what we're offering doing is just circling back for just a minute
at the start of this meeting to cover
two of our current vacant positions.
So we made some determinations last Monday.
Those items highlighted in green are items that council and the mayor has
determined are worthwhile to keep in the existing numbers.
And then those couple of red highlighted items were items that were
the consensus was we would take out of the existing numbers.
Those couple of yellow highlighted items are the ones
we're just going to quickly circle back to just anymore
discussion analysis, kind of kind of ran out of time last Monday night.
So, with that, we'll go to the first position.
And this is the
engineering field, tech one, the position that we
started off on.
I'll turn it over to engineering Director Regnier here.
Yeah.
So a lot of folks out there,
on the screen, but this is a vacant position.
We typically, had our field
techs full, and then it's been a little bit harder the last few years.
With retirements, there's a bunch of retirements there.
Five, ten years in the last five, ten years.
And as part of that, we just, in the last
five years went from a 7 to 6 staff member department.
So we lost one of our cat just due to organizational changes.
Within the last few years.
And that was a technician position.
So we're down to three currently.
One of them is vacant.
That structure we have with our two field techs does
I mean, we've been able to make it work and made it work this year.
This year was a somewhat of a down year.
And the fact
that we didn't have a reconstruct project, which we typically do every year.
So normally when we have our normal slate of projects,
we utilize all of our field techs.
And even this year, with just two field techs
and part of this year we're running with just one.
Just before we could fill the second vacant one.
We still have points where we really could
use more field techs, but we obviously only have the two.
So whether it's myself, Ryan, or Jared, our project manager,
our going out on the field and kind of helping plug in that work. So
without them, we're making it work.
But it's
kind of taking away from other work or things like even contractors
coming in to do, sidewalk replacements as part of utility projects.
Their contractors generally know what they're doing, but sometimes they don't.
And if we're not out there to watch them, we get ramps that aren't Ada compliant
and then we're redoing work or they're redoing work.
And we don't do that when we have the staff
that are around to go out and actually verify stuff as needed.
So things like that.
But then in general, what does this person do?
Why do we have currently two why we usually have three or
we used to have four.
It's because during the summer months there is all sorts of projects
between our overlays, our reconstruction projects,
residents redoing their driveways or utilities.
Service lines of utility companies
all over, just down the road here.
For example, on fifth Street, Excel is doing their big replacement project,
and we we're involved in all those type of projects and inspections and design
on the reconstructs and overlays in our alley, reconstruct projects.
And generally we frequently have or
bigger non reoccurring projects
like the Trail project or sidewalk project next year things like that.
So we're pretty busy during the summer months and the winter months.
It's slightly slows down when you do a lot of our data processing
during that time, and that is the best time to do the design.
That's where this position is, envisioned to help fulfill those needs as well,
because we'd like to add someone that has the computer experience
and the field capabilities so that we can keep them fully
utilized during the slower times in the winter on the design.
And then when we need them, they can
grab their boots and go out in the field.
All this comes at a cost.
And why do we do it?
Because we can save a bunch of costs and get a lot better service.
If we don't do it, we pay consultants to do all that work.
Design, inspection, whatever happens to be.
And that comes at paying for their profit because they're a for profit business.
You're paying for their drive time.
And typically
any time someone comes to town, you probably figure in two hours of that day
just and drive time all park and their prep time and whatnot.
And they're just not intimately plugged in with the city
like we are and able to respond and kind of know
what they're talking about relatively quickly, if not immediately.
Whereas consultants or someone that you hire,
you're going to have to get them up to speed.
They're going to have to kind of learn about it.
And they're not here unless they make a special trip to deal with it. So
that's all what we say.
If we do that, all that work in-house, we're not paying consultants
and their profit and all that stuff.
I can give some of the examples.
I think maybe we listed them up there.
Oh, we don't listed up there.
But, for example, our again, our reconstruction projects,
we've typically been able to do those in-house.
But we're kind of getting more and more pinched and to be honest as well,
our that work is being done primarily by Ryan,
who started as the CAD technician 25 years ago.
And has moved up and we've never really gotten that position backfilled.
So he doesn't stay up on the ball with all that he's not doing this day
in and day out.
So he's not as efficient as someone that we would like to have in that position.
He's great and does a good job, but
it's not really part of his, normal duties.
He just keeps doing it because we need to.
So all those things would be alleviated
with filling our position here.
Questions for Zach and.
I guess I just had one
as far as do we have any data or numbers on how much reviews, consultants or,
you know, outside work to cover those responsibilities?
I don't have, those numbers.
And, I mean, you can generally figure
like going back to the presentation that we just saw.
Obviously different project, different scale.
We're talking about.
But those soft costs, you know, they added 18.5%.
That's kind of all the design and inspection are two big parts of that.
And some other stuff.
But that's the type of thing where
our sidewalk project for next year.
We're paying consultant to do that.
And there's some aspects where we maybe need to have a consultant do it anyway,
because there's some traffic analysis at the Tyler Road intersection that are
a little bit higher level and specialized.
But the point being, we possibly could do work like that in-house
and maybe would have saved 100 grand, give or take, on that project
or same with our street reconstruct projects.
We'd be looking at possibly even more than that.
Maybe, 100, 200,000 when we're looking at designing that stuff in-house versus
if we can't keep up with that anymore and have to hire it out.
It's typically quite expensive to hire that.
And the inspection side is about equal
five to or like usually 6 to 10% of a project cost.
Do we have,
do we have a listed in the budget, any amount for
outside services for this type of thing?
A lot of times these are projects.
These are usually related to a project.
So they become part of the project costs.
So it's in the CIP is where a lot of these costs will be found.
Okay.
Is that why Marshall.
Like when you look at the levy impact with how it's presented here, like it's
33,000, but really cost hundred and 29, that that has a lot to do with.
We discussed this briefly last Monday too, but
we wanted to be able to try to give you some data points for reference.
And what that relates to is if the fund, the the engineering fund,
for example, does it receive a transfer from the general fund?
Any transfer from the general fund can,
for the most part, assume to be from property taxes,
and they do receive a transfer from the general fund for operating costs.
And every year they receive 400,000 for, repaving.
They have a $400,000 repaving program every year.
So we looked at how
much revenue does, the fund generate by itself
and what proportion of that is actually come from the general fund.
And we'd simply multiply that by the cost of the position
so we could say, you know, this is the same exact science.
No, but about 30
is that number 33,000, 33,000 comes from property tax support.
So it's a percentage of total income represented by general fund.
So we came up with a number.
Well maybe to stick with what we did last Monday.
Do we are we okay.
Maybe going down the line real quick and giving any comments on
what we think about this position or what would you like to do?
Chris I think that's a great process, but I'm just kind of trying
to listen to these, descriptions and add a little bit of context
that might makes more sense.
So from my experience in the last community I was in, we so
we did typically 1.2 to 1.5 million and street projects per year.
All of it was contracted out.
We had a consulting city engineer and then the engineering firm, typically
that firm did all the design and construction inspection.
We were
trying though, and earlier to try to save some funds,
on the construction inspection component, could we hire a city employee,
full time city employee, and alleviate some of the construction
inspection costs, which generally would have been around?
If you're talking about that 1.2 million, that's about
70,000 of the project was often construction inspection.
So we utilize an employee.
That would be
that that's a large percentage of the wage for construction inspection.
And then what could we utilize them for during the remainder of the year?
We never got to that finish line.
They continued to pay for that construction inspection component.
But here in Red Wing, the uniqueness is that that position is also, as Zach
described, is being used for the CAD work and the design work.
And so there's I mean, it doesn't
quite correlate because it depends on the projects that we're doing,
but you could say it potentially saves $150,000 a year
if those costs aren't contracted out.
So it's really hard to assume
because it changes year by year by year, but it's a definite cost savings
on your overall budget if you utilize it
to do what you would otherwise be contracting for.
I'm not showing..oh.
Go ahead Don.
Say, how many years is this position been open?
That's a little bit hard.
So we had two a year ago,
and then one of those, went to Lake City and then we hired a back end.
So we've been able to fill in, but we've just lost a person here.
There.
I don't know.
And some of you recall just because we're in the building there when that was left.
But there was a longstanding, up until the last 5 to 10 year timeframe
where the for field techs were like 20 to 30 year, ten year employees.
And then once they left it
been filling those
and 1 or 2 has come and gone are two that we have or a couple that we have
have been here now for several years and,
have had some longevity with us.
And my question was just,
I mean, are there specific projects for 2026 that we really do feel
and I know, again, that we would use this type of work that we know for
sure is going to be needed, and we would have a cost savings right away.
Yeah.
So, I mean, anticipating the construction phase of the sidewalk
project or service drive project that will be coming back here in a little bit.
So right there we would use inspections.
We anticipate the 2026 Street reconstruction project,
which we're trying to get through design right now.
Again, we could be a little bit more efficient and have that process.
Would we be helping there, helping in the inspection side of that,
finishing up inspections on our trail project and our normal list?
The smaller things that don't add up to the big dollars
are when we get the calls every week of someone replacing their driveway
or building a new garage, and we're the ones that go out and
provide recommendations, or
at least enforce our codes and make sure everything is done right.
So they're not tearing it all and redoing it and all the little things that we do.
Laying out, striping up on Memorial Park,
to help the public work staff and,
and some of the little stuff too, that we don't even have a dollar amount
for it, do respond to quite a few community issues.
Yeah.
Ron, do you mind if I have you go on that side to start with?
Any thoughts you have?
Yeah.
I think I'm a no on this.
I think, you know, when you're looking at different projects and things
like that, you know, the demand is there when that project's there.
If the project's not there, there's not necessarily a demand.
And you may or may not be
using that person's time
efficiently, effectively.
Don, you want to go next?
Defer.
I'm going to probably be very hesitant also on this and say no.
At this point,
I would feel much more comfortable if I had like the specific numbers of
of what we're looking at in front of me, of like me,
you know, so I'd encourage you, like for this coming year,
if you can keep track again of like how we can use that.
Like I think it could justify me supporting it for 2027.
But at this point I'd say no.
I mean, yes, I do think just maybe not
the hard numbers you're looking for, but, we have a big project coming up.
We have the sidewalk project coming up.
We still have the,
path project that's not completed to,
I support this.
When I,
walked through the department, it was, intact, with Zach
and just having two people there doing this work, it's burdensome.
And so I support this.
I'm going to ask a question
about this position.
Is it going to affect getting the street side,
the sidewalk down on our service drive and,
other projects we have this next year?
I guess a
ultimately everything will get done.
It's just whether the cup, whether we pay extra for consultants or not.
So you would use consultancies to get it done.
You see, it kind of get pushed back via, for example, Bolton
Menk, the firm that did this study is doing the North Service drive sidewalk.
So if we need assistance
they would
because they did the design they would provide a
inspections if we need any.
We've made yes easier.
If it would be like well it's going to make it way more difficult.
But I still support the project, the position because of the need
within the department and knowing the cost of consultants.
Substantially more than having your own in-house.
It's something like this.
In keeping with what I heard
Beth say and what I heard Kim say, I would.
I also support the project.
And when I'm thinking about
why specifically, in addition to the big projects,
the day to day work, when I see lead CAD efforts and assist with field work,
just having another person there to help in, feel and be creative and help
with like that extra design piece that you have
and consulting fees.
They're so blasted expensive.
So I do support this position.
Will we utilize
any outside consultants if this position is filled?
Yeah.
So we always get every depending on the project.
I mean there always are going to be projects
that require outside consultants because some things have specialty things.
Most of our projects we're able to do in-house.
But everyone smile.
If we get into a big intersection, we may need a traffic engineer
because they do that and we want to make sure
our intersection is safe or whatever the case is.
That's maybe one of the bigger ones, but not typically.
Typically, we do stuff in-house and we don't know
how much we spent on consultants that this position would handle.
Correct.
And not specifically tallied up. No.
Time.
Do you have any other comments that you would like to?
Okay.
Well, I mean, I was I was a know on Monday night on this particular, position.
I mean, I'm under the impression unless I'm thinking of a different position.
Even back when, Jay was here, we had, we had a position.
Is it the same one?
Just the same type of position?
Yes. So we couldn't fill.
I mean, we've
since the day I've been on this council haven't been able to fill that position.
So what are the odds that might have been the one that was eliminated when we went,
when they went from 4 to 3 just in the last five years,
one staff position was eliminated from the org chart.
I'm assuming your time with that.
I wasn't here during that.
So I think it's it was more technical, like engineering or engineering
directly related engineering.
Engineering assistant one of those two.
Oh yeah.
Might even been either assistant city engineer position correctly.
That's correct.
I'm thinking it.
If so. Correct. Okay.
In that case, I support it.
Any other questions or comments on that position?
Then I think we'll move on to
CIP manager then discussion
next FTE position.
Yeah.
So I'll try to be brief for my remarks
so we can get straight to questions or comments and anything else.
Or to make sure we clarify a few things.
This, this reclassification that we're proposing,
it results from a vacancy of the current board chart.
It is not a request for a new position.
I just wanted to clarify that off the bat.
Another point.
I just wanted to kind of clarify and give a little explanation is,
the recent new hire that just started, a couple of weeks ago.
And he came back for his second pay period.
So, you know, good sign.
So that position
was also also resulted
from filling a vacancy that had existed that was a separate position.
It was filling a vacant position that had sat vacant for, a little over a year.
In a way,
that position is a little unrelated to this, only because that position
is designed to assist with some of those annual
large lists, like the audit process, the budget process,
and then internal and external
financial reporting.
As well as provide some,
backup capabilities in our important functions, you know, being able
to train and provide and have a backup for a payroll function or
provide and train to have a backup for utility billing function.
So that position with the person who we were able to
hire is kind of designed for a little bit different.
So it's not completely unrelated to this, because what we are talking about
overall is overall staffing capacity.
But I just wanted to point that out.
What we're proposing
is in line with exactly what council said
they valued at the last annual workshop, which was
when a vacancy comes due.
Do a little thoughtful analysis
on what your needs are.
And that's what we're doing here.
We recognize that it may be difficult to find a CIP manager
as fit the role as it previously was filled,
and in the exact function that it previously provided.
However,
that resource still provides
function and tremendous value to the city.
And so what we're proposing is offering and a lower level accountant position
to fill and be able to continue to assist
the other departments citywide.
In doing things like capital improvement,
project analysis, helping manage grants.
Grants aren't always just something that we go out
and seek the funding and secure it.
There's a lot of work on the back end to a report
to verify, managing grants and their compliance.
And I had some.
And just going from what you heard before this meeting to that multiyear process
to secure bond funds, that's a really heavy lift,
even for a consultant, because that generally entails meeting
with every single member of the House and Senate Capital Investment Committee.
That means going through there
to try to get on their calendar when it works for them.
Send invites, a call.
Those invites out to you folks to come, to come up to the Capitol with us to have
those pressing, needed conversations, like trying to secure those grant funds
for these bigger capital projects
and the multiyear, project time frame.
Is it it's not just going to affect public works.
Part of it is the whole financial planning and and work around
that and trying to secure that funding, which takes quite a bit of effort.
We are very familiar with multiyear, wait times to secure funding,
whether that be for the surge link road rail grade separation project
for, River Renaissance things of those nature.
It takes a lot of concerted time, energy and effort to see those through.
But at the end of the day, they've been extremely huge dividends to the community.
Yeah.
And then lastly,
Lastly, I just want to also mention or offer up what this position will provide.
And the department is, it's the opportunity
and the resource to be able to tackle some
much needed improvements.
As you all are aware,
we had to make a payment processing
or what would you call it, a platform transition.
We were on PSN, we are now on express bill pay.
I mean, projects like that.
That was a vital project that was very important to our city staff,
our cashiers, to remain efficient and being able
to account for transactions.
You know, projects like that where we're transitioning
or making improvements for efficiency,
those are a heavy lift, and those are often going to be
things that originate and are managed through finance,
and places a burden on the existing finance staff.
So, being able to have a resource available to us to be able
to tackle some of those efficiency improvements that are on the horizon,
that remains important to us. So,
with that, I hope that table is pretty clear.
And what we're trying to accomplish.
We took the, I guess really
to sum it up, you would have a couple of options.
What staff is recommending is the elimination of the CIP manager role
and then replacing it with a lower level accounting role
and realizing some savings of reduced over time from the existing budget.
And the last plug I'll make is really about something Tony
and I talk about probably too frequently, because we're not comfortable with it.
And ultimately it's it's the council's responsibility.
It's really about the backup for mission
critical, processes.
And I think of those often as utility billing and payroll
and having capacity so that if something happened to one of those people
or God forbid,
they just wanted to go to their own kids wedding,
but it happened to be during the payroll week, that
they have somebody else within the department
that can perform those functions we lack right now
adequate, cross-training,
adequate duplication, adequate ability.
If something were to happen, one of our key people
doing one of those processes, it's something we're highly uncomfortable with.
But like I said, at the end of the day, that's a it's
a council could live with that risk or assume that risk.
We defer that decision to folks.
Any questions from Marshall until mayor did,
do we have cross-training in our financial departments
when the people how many people are we've been able to do payroll?
Sure.
There's nobody that can back.
We have nobody that backs up payroll. Correct.
That's why we've been short people for a couple of years running.
We just fill that's the account position.
But as Tony was explaining, that accountants position
is almost fully consumed between audit budget.
It's a never ending process goes on all year.
Answer questions from department heads, you know, help with the budget process.
It's that's basically a full time job.
What we're what we're this accountant that we're talking about here
instead of a CIP manager is really that relief valve.
It's to help accommodate succession plan and ensure we have the capacity
and the people to have the time to actually learn that other system
and understand it thoroughly.
Right now, if we just had, for example, our new accountant, his name is Bradley
Johnson, he's going to do great, but he's not going to have
what his role will not, involve being backup
for either for some of these mission critical, processing positions.
He just simply he will not have the time.
So we only have one person that can do payroll.
That's correct.
What if they resign tomorrow?
What do we do now? What?
We are backup. Emergency plan
is, this all goes back to succession planning.
That's why I wanted to mention it.
Our backup emergency plan is probably Tony.
And I don't want you sitting at computer me on the phone with our software vendor
to help process and get through the process
and try to get the payroll out.
Is this a is this a new process?
I mean, did we have someone else that could
that was cross-trained and they had left us?
Correct.
The former CIP manager,
was actually cross-trained,
and that person was only here for about a year.
Correct?
Yeah. Give or take. Yeah. You're right.
Who did that before?
Who is the backup before?
I'm just. I find it.
It's concerning that we only have one person that can do payroll.
We have the same concern.
I'm done.
Any other questions for Tony? Sorry.
Well, and just just to clarify that point,
I don't think what we're proposing necessarily would be to provide
we're not asking above and beyond to have like two payroll experts
and be above and beyond.
But to Marshall's point, if we lost that payroll person,
that critical payroll person, it would pull likely myself and likely
another resource away from our other duties.
And all those other duties are currently
held to capacity more or less.
Okay, so we have I mean, we have the ability
to adapt and prioritize and triage these things,
but we don't really have anyone that can step in,
just step in.
Not not directly. No.
All right.
No, I mean, it would be a strain on in our other areas, we'd be able to adapt.
But you know, it would be it would be a struggle in some of our other areas.
Okay. Understood. Thank you.
Vicki.
Joe, for a couple of,
clarifying questions then,
if we're talking about restructuring the position in the finance department
and the CIP manager position going away, and you were talking about setting up,
the long range planning for bringing money into the city
and doing the meetings and doing all of that.
I'm assuming that
piece of that job then is gone.
You're talking about hiring an accountant who isn't a specialist in networking
and getting and long range planning and grant
writing and grant seeking, all of that kind of stuff.
Am I correct in that assumption?
Let me clarify.
So to some extent there's less of that.
But that's just a function of the city currently is focusing on a couple.
One of the the major project is the one we just heard about earlier tonight.
We are not pursuing the number
or level of priorities that we have pursued in the past.
So before we'd have any number related to the River Renaissance
Revitalization project, trails, riverfront
and those aren't, deemed by this council council's process.
We're not pushing, those who try to move those forward.
So there's not the volume that helps.
So there will be some capacity in this position where they be an expert.
Perhaps not to the extent that Ron
was, but we have experience, too,
or we're, you know, available and would be happy to assist.
We want to make sure whoever this person is,
they're successful in the organization as a whole is successful.
So I look at as how much volume what's the volume?
And because the volume has been turned down a little bit, we don't do
we need somebody 100% of the time to focus
like rounded on those specific projects?
Perhaps not.
That was our thought process when we were discussing this and,
looking at how we could reorganize some of the department to, to make sure
that kind of all of the current needs were met and we came up with this
would be a better fit this account than a CIP manager at this time.
That's it for now, Ron.
So do we have financial people in like the HRA?
I know we have in the HRA to support have them.
I mean, do we need to be compartmentalized
between those groups or could there there be some cross training
amongst all the finance people so you can get some some backups?
Yeah.
So the organization for as long as I've been here
25 years plus the HRA has always had
the has always been very independent.
I talked to their finance people
2 or 3 times a year, and it's usually about, hey, the levy's coming up.
I need you to provide this information.
The port used to have its own finance
department, the shell, and used to have its own finance department.
And those have been merged into the city's
finance department, but specifically to the HRA.
They still stand as an outlier.
And, Chris is probably better verse on why
that is because of the different charters or whatever it may be.
I'm not entirely sure, but all I can say is they have historically
and always been that that way in their own finance.
People are person. We've been.
Specifically to Kyle,
he's very good finance mind and has a lot of good ideas.
But I don't think he's going to help us in backing up payroll
unless it is.
Do you mind, for the sake of time again, if I.
Mayor, do you mind if I start on that side?
Any thoughts on this position?
I know you just ate a chocolate, so I'm sorry.
No, that's fine, I.
I can go either way on this.
I, I'm concerned that we really don't have a cross-training program for backup.
I mean, in my company, we have several people that can do it
because you cannot miss payroll. So.
And I'd like to thank, Miss Parel because I get,
you can sign up on Minnesota, state Minnesota for any kind of grants.
And I saw a grant come through that might help our water department.
She says I'm on it.
They're going to use it for, fluoride pump of some sort.
But thank you.
And I think that's what our department should also do.
I mean, that be proactive.
Thank you know.
If you think that they
the demand is not high for the CIP manager,
and there's staff who are cross-trained enough
to be able to pick up those duties,
and you really do need the support financially.
So to transition this from one position to the other, I would support that
because I really think it's important that that staff
are capable of doing a number of different things
and filling in those gaps,
because there's nothing worse than having that position be full and then
I think the word you used was triage, and that's a medical term
that I don't think that the city should be employing.
A support option be,
I'd also like a follow up,
update after this person is hired, when the cross training is completed.
I'm on the fence, but I'll support B.
With the same caveat.
It'll be the first thing they're going to be introduced to.
So after report.
And I'm still at the point I mean I've requested to look at different
finance departments.
We talked about this up known still haven't gotten the information
I asked about comparing other like size cities compared to after.
So at this point I just have to say no, I want to help.
I want us to be cross-trained, but I just can't justify it at this time,
especially with the information that requested and haven't received
yet. So.
I, I feel the same way.
And,
you know, the question I have is, are we, it would be nice
to compare us to maybe some other cities and how their finance departments work.
And are we using all of the up to date and most modern software that we can?
With the AI revolution that's going on,
there might be ways to, to make this, this whole process simpler.
I don't know, I'm not a not an accountant, but,
I think I would rather research that,
those options before we, we obligate ourselves at this point.
You know, if we come in at
2.9 at the end, I would maybe consider going back and changing that.
But, at this point, we still need to find savings in our, in our budgeting here.
So I'm going to say no at this time.
I'm in the same mind as Janie, and I'm.
All right,
any thing else on FTE is that we need to cover.
And I'll move us on.
I didn't know Marshall or Chris or Tony.
If you want to go right into these proposals for consideration.
I know that paid family leave is,
I don't know how you want to organize it, so I'll hand it back over to you guys.
What you want to do?
Well, I think we're okay again, just continuing on right in order.
So, first for consideration
is a few items, proposals for consideration for council to make.
They're all listed there.
I hope they're straightforward.
Starting with the police department has an e-bike in the CIP.
What we're proposing is utilizing a transfer from the Green Fund.
This would be a qualifying expense.
So we could use a transfer for that 4900.
The second one there is the council contingency
that we've discussed at previous workshops.
We'd be recommending,
lowering that from the preliminary amount of 250,000 to get it back
down to the $200,000 amount, which it is in 2025.
So same amount,
on park side,
we could consider postponing,
invasive weed control measures on
I think it's specific to Barn Bluff area.
That would be $10,000 of savings.
And then finally on this page, Chief
Warner has gone through quite a bit of research.
He had in the original preliminary levy,
a $50,000 very professionally done.
It's a standards of coverage study.
And he is proposing finding some savings by doing more of an in-house option.
That would result in about $35,000 of savings from preliminary budget.
So our
question to the city council is really,
do you want us to move forward with these does
is there any hesitation on the council's part or.
Kim, do you want to
I do have a question about the Green Fund.
How much do we currently have in there?
You know, I wrote it down.
I forgot to bring it with me, but I want to say it was.
You better look it up.
Yeah, I think I'll look it up, but it's it's a fairly substantial amount.
It's in the $100,000 range.
And how much are we putting into it each year?
Like this year zero.
The next year zero. It has to go. So it's zeroed out.
Yeah. It hasn't gone to for a couple of years.
Well they look that up.
Any other questions or comments on these extra proposals for consideration.
Yeah okay.
Multitasking guys if I have the camera okay.
The key
to I have a question on the contingency if,
if we keep it exactly the same this year to next year.
How does that consider how does that consider inflation?
It doesn't
I don't think of it as an inflationary,
issue.
What we do is we looked at the trends.
So we've looked at the trends.
There's been a few years where are the past ten
where we actually use and I think we provided
some of this earlier in the budget process.
But we actually use the $500,000 that we used to set up for contingency.
But those were always very specific to certain
events, primarily related to weather and snow.
And then, crime,
criminal asset,
resulted in a lot of extra overtime.
We haven't had those.
So over the last, you know, 4 or 5 years, we've used the contingency anywhere
between 200 and 400,000 and haven't used the entirety of it this year.
We haven't used the entirety of the 200,000.
So we reconsider and we just on based on
trends in the 200,000 has been sufficient the last few years.
Optimistically, no big snowstorms, no,
extraordinary criminal activity.
At this point, we think it would suffice.
There's always a conversation you recall about fund balance.
Even if we, utilize the all the contingency,
the city council still can use
some of that fund balance to address any kind of emergency situation.
Two thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it.
To circle back to the Green Fund.
The Green Fund has $115,000 available.
And as Marshall mentioned, we have no money going in there for next year.
I'm fine.
No money going in there.
I think that's a great use of it.
Is for the e-bike.
I don't remember all the details of what it can be used for.
But can it be
used for the prescribed burns to,
to fight the invasive plants?
It was
I mean, it was it was initially set up for energy conservation
and really looking at, electric vehicles,
you might recall talking about fire trucks and things of that nature.
But the council has full discretion over how those funds are spent.
But that was essentially what it was established for.
I just hate to see us get behind on the invasive species,
because it it's pretty, pretty prevalent around our city.
If you look and see green in the woods right now, it's invasive because.
And the thought on that was, there are there were some,
looking for the word here,Shawn.
Loose, loose commitments to help maintain and keep that.
They just haven't materialized yet.
So we're optimistic if we give it another year that might help
produce those funds to help offset city costs for invasive control.
Okay, mayor, at some point, not now, but could you just send me, what?
We can use the funds for sure.
January is fine.
I you know, it could you could you said that out to the whole council.
In past years, we've had discussions about eliminating that green fund
and is transferring it to the general fund.
Is there any more consideration to that?
We weren't making any budget decisions on that.
But that, again, is a council.
It's a it's a year program.
The council has full discretion over what they want to do with it.
I do like the idea
of if we can see if we can use it for the invasive bird,
but if it if there's a possibility of getting Grant the grant or whatever,
we should do that before we pull it from there.
But if we don't get it in the, and we should do these burns because
you get behind on it and it's more expensive.
Yeah.
So and I will note that because our, the thought behind
it was let's just give it a year, see if those grants will materialize.
If they don't we will definitely be bringing it up again.
Next year.
Moving us on.
Any more thoughts on these considerations?
Are we all okay and clear direction on that for you guys? Yes.
Okay.
Let's move on to the
paid family and medical leave options.
All right.
With that, we had our, Minnesota paid family leave.
Hopefully everybody knows what it is at this point.
If you don't, please
clarify it.
But what we are looking to do
is get firm concrete, you know, 100%.
What are we?
What way is the council deciding for us to go?
As you all know from the benefit workshop in October,
there's an up private option.
The MetLife option?
You know, we feel the advantage to that
would not just be in, slight
savings in rate,
but in the administrative ease of the program.
It's it's likely to be that, you know, MetLife has has run this
program and other states
likely just going to be
that much more administratively easy and, and user friendly.
Frankly,
the MetLife option,
do you have budgeted right now?
So as you see on there, the top line currently in the budget is oh,
so the other part of this law is
employers are required to cover half of the cost.
And that's the amount that I have in the current budget.
We use the state rate at the time.
So the .88 percent, half of that is the 0.44
that's currently in the budget.
It is any employer's option to cover more than half,
but it is a requirement to cover at least half.
So we laid out just a couple other ranges there.
It's likely I don't know if it's official,
but it's likely we're going with the MetLife option.
So we have on there, if we did
the employer, half of the MetLife rate,
three
quarters of the MetLife rate, fully funding the MetLife rate.
I mean, it's really, a decision we'd like
to have determined here tonight just so we can tie up those loose strings.
It doesn't have drastic necessarily budgetary changes,
but also administratively.
I think we need to just make that decision because there are some deadlines
coming up.
To be able to choose which option work.
And half of the MetLife rate, which you're saying
is easier administratively to conduct and provide.
Yeah, that's a that's our belief.
This program already exists in 14 other states.
And MetLife has administered this program in other states.
It's hard to anticipate a new program rolling out in this in a state
and knowing just how well the rollout is going to actually occur.
So, I mean, there's there's some quantifiable data that MetLife
already knows what this looks like, and it's just going to be
that much easier should any of our employees participate.
So I mean, that's a consideration that, you know,
given it's a new state program, we've all seen how the, rolled out.
So we believe that, you know,
it would be friendly and more friendlier administratively.
And again, for those end users working with MetLife that just, you know,
they specialize in this, this is what they do.
Any concerns with that recommendation.
But did you have a comment.
Yeah I have two questions.
One, so we have to provide it to the employees.
Have to take it.
Yes okay.
Police are required. There.
Yeah. There is no opt out.
Then can I ask a second of workers.
So if if I'm an employee and I how much if
how much is it going to cost me if as a council person, I vote for half
the MetLife rate and I'm paying half as an employee versus a fully funded,
it would cost the same amount for the employee
as it would cost for the employer under that case,
because you're basically splitting the rate.
So if you've the so it's going to cost them
$77,000 in collectively the whole city, the whole city.
But I want to know on my paycheck okay.
Let's deploy.
It would be it would be
the rate would be 0.0042 times what your wages are.
So it's .004 to the four one in this case.
Excuse me. Okay.
Whatever your wage you make.
Okay. And that's annually.
Yes. Annually.
They break it down by pay period. It's probably.
Yeah. Yeah.
It's a it's just like any other payroll tax, a couple bucks a project probably.
Okay. Thank you.
Can I just, having gone through this and done a lot of research on it
and how to save money and my own organization,
I support the move in that life rather than the state.
All of them that I looked at were better administered
than what I believe the state will roll out.
And,
you know, I, I'll say I, I support that
for, paying the half
and having the employer pay the other half.
I think we got good consensus on that.
I really want to.
I'm have concerns or, you know, half my life, I think you do have to do have. Okay.
Anything
point I say yes at this point.
Okay.
As the conversation continues, I might have something else to add.
Okay. Thank you.
I can move on to some administrative changes,
and I would just like to at least say that we're at 704.
So if we do our and I get over here by eight, not that we don't all are having
a great time, but just to be cognizant of the time.
I don't know anywhere else why else to put it.
We appreciate that.
So administratively we've already entered some changes.
Please has a few line items.
We we were able to talk to Nick and realize a couple revenue lines
that we could raise.
So we had charted the preliminary in recoverable over time.
So we corrected that by 6400.
We realized there was some parking fines and forfeits
with our increased enforcement activity that we could add $9,000 in revenue.
Yeah. Red line red items on here, by the way.
Reduce the levy. Green items, increase the levy.
There were three items that we did increase.
Police uniforms.
These are for the administrative staff.
The non payroll related type ones.
That that was
just kind of something that was missed in the preliminary budgeting process.
But we decided to correct it.
The criminal prosecution, the Goodhue County side
overall it was a 5% increase from 2025.
And this increase adjusts to correct that.
Winter planters.
That's an activity that has occurred the last couple of years.
Somehow, mistakenly, there was nothing included in the 25 budget.
We may have an item before the end of the year before you.
We're getting out in front of it for the 26 budget.
And what we're proposing is, counsel contribution of $10,000 with the remainder
coming from some sort of fundraising through downtown Main Street.
The historical cost of this project in the last four years,
since it fully formed, is between 15 and $20,000.
So we feel like a $10,000 contribution is probably somewhere in the middle.
Then those
last three items, the one on the bottom there, that's really
just a reflection of what we decided last week that was that transfer
from to the library being reduced to not higher.
One of the library positions.
There's, software that HR
uses, that one of the modules is not being utilized.
And we feel like we're going to be able to get that canceled
and not have to pay it.
And then that other one,
the education reimbursement, that's, that's a line that has existed
for quite a while, but just hasn't really been fully utilized.
There's $30,000 in the budget.
And if we take a look historically up to the last ten years or so,
roughly half of that over the last ten years it has been utilized for.
So this is kind of just a rightsizing of that program,
not an elimination of it, but getting it more in line with what
what we expect to see.
So those are the operating items.
And then we also have just some administrative
changes on the capital side. The CIP side.
And before engineering
Director Rainier takes a bow.
There's a few items there
that are reclassifying
simply because of how we do our CIP inside of our budgeting software.
The $13,000 in the $60,000
weren't incorporated into our original CIP numbers.
So we're really just course correcting to get those correct.
They're not new projects.
They're not.
They're not reclassifying the years or anything.
It's just it's it's getting them correctly included into our general fund CIP
because they generally have
there's typically at least one alley project every year.
So this gets that alley project scheduled in the right year.
So there is an alley project and 26,
there's a couple of dump trucks.
That first one there, the single axle dump truck.
Sean has brought forward an opportunity.
This was a truck that is fully in the was fully in the 2027
CIP amount for $275,000.
We're bumping up from 27 to 26,
150,000 to purchase the chassis,
to kind of avoid some federal
emission standards that are coming by then.
So we're really we're going to bump up.
So it'll be a reduction of the 27 CIP
and moving that chassis purchase forward
in 26.
The next one is the dual axle dump truck.
That's one that Shawn and his staff have determined
the existing truck
that would be on slate to be replaced
is still operational,
with the caveat of some additional
I guess we can call it maintenance, but it's really just purchase of a new box.
I believe.
So that was in
the the preliminary CIP for that total, that 210,000
with 136 originating from the general fund.
What Shawn has proposed is bumping that because of the condition of the truck
that would be replaced by this purchase,
he can extend the life of that.
So moving from 2026 to 2031,
with the increased maintenance cost of 50,000, there.
And then Shawn also offered out
there was a roadside mower in the preliminary CIP
that just.
Is being eliminated, from the CIP.
And then this is the chance for engineering Director
Regnier to take Vo, because he came in last week
and he offered up that the scope of work
has changed on the railroad crossing quiet
zone.
All I hear him explain any of the technical details on it,
but essentially the scope of work could change.
The original project looked like it would need to be more extensive.
He spent quite a bit of time with the railroads.
And in those meetings and in those terminations,
he's determined or been able to determine that far
less will be required to still accomplish the same goal.
And do you want to go ahead and just mention what it is?
And also you throw throwing that caveat about that November 7th or 14th date?
Sure. Yeah.
The the caveat is this technically, we're still in the review period.
Haven't received any comments and don't expect any.
But it doesn't end until November 17th.
But again, don't expect any comments.
But essentially we were under the impression
based on all prior discussions going back to 2020, even,
that we were going to need a new quad gate system.
If you recall, we talked about that the spring,
I was able to talk
with the railroad and more beneficially, the freight staff,
the Federal Rail Administration staff,
on some alternative options and, and talking with Shawn,
we should be able to implement a different way to do it.
We can channelize the road instead of putting up gates.
We can leave the crossing alone and do some road work within the roadway
and, yeah, save a significant amount of money.
And truthfully, the 600,000 that was in there
probably was a half million dollars short of what we would have needed
if we needed the quad gate arms.
So, it was again with the assumption
that we do get no further comments.
A good savings and
a lot easier to implement because we don't have to wait
for the railroad to install a new gate.
Wow. I feel like I
have an awesome comment for that, but all I can say is wow, great job, good job.
Yeah. And amazing.
Yeah, I was not expecting that.
And I got called to my office by
these two.
It's usually the conversation you had with public works or engineering.
So very nice.
Can I just ask where it. Shawn.
For the dual axle dump truck and for you guys?
You said there's a 50,000.
Where's that 50,000 on this to replace the.
It's the 32,000.
So that truck is used both in the utility side.
So water sewer and in the general fund side.
So that cost is broken down.
The 32,000 would be the general fund portion 9000.
The two $9,000.
The 18,000 combined would be the water and the sewer portion.
Okay. Contributions. All right. Thank you.
Any other questions on these CIP items
so that this is not here?
There are two different things.
The report I was looking at the report and I'm seeing correct.
The 50,000 was added today.
To update.
So it's still have significant savings from the capital improvement plan.
We believe this plan works.
And, we would recommend moving with it.
Any other questions
or concerns on these changes?
Just so taking off the road side more.
That's fine.
Yeah. It's, it's a piece of equipment.
That was.
It was the is it's, schedule replacement.
And we're.
Not sure that when that piece of equipment
breaks and it's irreparable, we're not so sure we'll just continue that.
We'll probably contract that work.
Oh, okay.
Well, again, to all the departments, I would say thank you because you've
obviously put some extra work into these and creative ways.
And so thank you for doing that. Well,
so now we've got a little additional information for you.
We're not recommending any changes, but we've had
questions from the mayor and city council about this.
So we thought this would be an opportune time for to allow you to have
a discussion about them.
So the first one is on the performance pages.
There's been questions about the city's performance pay.
These are the
these are the numbers, that we've had budgeted and,
and compared to actual so if council wants any additional information
that other was in the agenda or is attached to the slide,
please ask away.
Any questions or comments on this?
Mayor
I haven't seen or it's graded at all.
And the metrics and things.
If I could get that, I'd appreciate it.
Yeah.
Well, as the I don't need right now.
Yeah. We’ll ask HR send that.
Thank you. That's something that we can have HR include.
Thank you.
So I'll I'll go first.
I'm very uncomfortable with this program.
I have been since I first saw it.
When I look at the criteria,
for this program, it's,
very soft, very, very soft.
And there are
there are no metrics to it.
There's just not metrics.
And,
a positive, cooperative approach to working with,
like, the leaders to me, that your job,
significant contributions
to City council's strategic priorities, goals and objectives.
It's part of the job definition.
So I'm and as I go down,
I'm uncomfortable and coming
coming from my background where we did
have incentive programs for leaders, which I support, I fully support.
It was very based in metrics.
And I can tell you, the first metric was financial performance.
Now it's different in the public sector, and I understand that.
But I can tell you that if the company,
even if my division of the company met
the performance metrics or even exceeded them,
but the entire company as a whole did, no one got a bonus or an incentive pay.
And then there were other things.
So I was in quality and safety.
So we met the financial metrics.
But if the organization didn't meet the quality and safety metrics,
we didn't get that proportion of the bonus.
This is not,
this is not based on measurable, metrics.
That bothers me.
The second thing that concerns me is,
and I know I'm comparing,
private to public, and it's probably not a fair comparison,
but it's interesting here
that even the nonunion
employees get the same Cola
benefits that the union employees get.
So if the union and I can't remember exactly what we negotiated for
the next two years, the, the exempt employees
get that same Cola,
same cola increase.
That's generally not true in the private sector.
So we have leaders who are getting
raises.
And I'm not saying you shouldn't get raises.
And then on top of that you're getting incentive pay.
That's really not based on measurable metrics.
So I am very uncomfortable
with continuing this program as it is.
It just
it it is,
it doesn't seem
fair.
Fair to our taxpayers, fair to our city.
It just doesn't seem very fair.
Kim. When we did the
the most recent pay study, we compare it to other cities
and we hired, consultant to look at all this.
This was taken into account based on how we compare it across the board.
And I don't believe that there was
any other cities that had anything quite like this.
So I questioned, maintain it.
It's, maintaining it as it currently is.
Without some sort of review
within it.
There's um. Ron?
I would agree with what's been said already.
The other thing is to is, is like with the step increases
and you're kind of guaranteed.
I mean, what is a step increase in the new pay plan?
3.1 or 3.7% a year?
I think it's 3.2 or 3, two five, 3.2,
you know, and so then like this year, there's a 4%
cola next year or a 3% cola.
You know, in my experience in the private sector, you know,
and we had an incentive program, but half of it was a company related.
How did the company do?
You know, if they didn't meet their goals, half
your incentive was gone right off the bat.
And then a lot of times your individual goals,
you know, are part of that
overall overarching goal that the company had.
So a lot of times that was cut back to.
So I agree that there's not enough metrics here.
The other thing is too, in the private sector,
not everybody gets the same Cola, you know, like the exempt people.
That's all based on your performance as well.
So I agree with what's been said.
And and just my experience is that there isn't enough here.
You know, I would like to see the 50% be, you know, what we do with the levy.
And I know we kind of control a lot of what happens
with the levy, right, based on the decisions we make.
So a lot of times it's out of your control,
but it's not much different
than in the private sector where you're in the in a big company.
Right.
And you have no no say over what their overarching goals are and say,
this is a path for me and you can know that, you know, that's not going to work,
but that's just how it goes.
So I would like to see I don't know that we need to get rid of it totally,
but I think there needs to be a little more,
objectivity in here.
Yeah.
I don't think it's any secret.
I've been opposed to this since the day I was elected.
First term.
You know, it would be really interesting to know,
how long this has been in effect in Red wing.
And what other communities?
It just seems to me that it's really odd that were bonuses based on,
you know, on the, the list of, of items
that are on our sheet here.
You know, we, we did last year,
pay equity study and, and, I think when it was all said and done,
most received about a 9% increase in their, in their salaries.
I'll tell.
So I don't, I don't think that, you know,
we're not paying fairly,
for staff, you know, I mean, would I be open
possibly to, another way of doing it,
but I would be, I would be in favor of reducing
just this cost of $308,000 that we're budgeting.
To reduce our levy.
I think it I
this is a complicated comparison, and I'm going to make it anyway.
Here's the situation as I see it.
We just said that we would do
the city would offer half of the paid family leave,
and the other half would come out of the employee paycheck.
I heard that, and, I said I was probably going to circle back.
And here we are.
And we're talking about performance pay, and we're talking about performance
pay for the one group that has to go on Iqra Insurance.
So they have an extraordinary, situation
where we negotiate with our union staff and in the union staff
have our health insurance,
which is a significantly better package overall or less, you know.
Right.
And so I am mindful of when,
when the staff who take that promotion, they say yes to this.
They also say yes to stepping off the insurance.
And that's a big deal these days.
And I think about the and and the sacrifice, if you will,
of stepping out of that with the knowledge that there's this opportunity
that I can probably pay my health insurance with my performance pay,
that's where my brain goes.
So I'm using my performance pay, probably to pay for my health insurance,
because I'm not getting it so that being a working person, that's where my head is
thinking about how that investment is, it's a real thing.
And,
Should we look at tidying up this performance?
I'm not saying that we should just be passing out bonuses.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
However, at the same time,
if we're going to say, let's go ahead and eliminate this performance
pay, I'm going to say, then let's go ahead and get rid of Iqra
and pull everybody back in to our health insurance.
That is my that is what I'm proposing.
If we say no to this, then I say we say yes to the other.
And,
And I really want us to think about that because I think that's a real concern
that people who are in leadership in this organization have, I
that's a real consideration.
I'd like you to consider that as well.
Mayor Iiocco, do you want to add anything?
I know I think you went first, so I don't mean to...
I just how many folks are on the performance pay?
It's roughly 55 050.
Okay. Thanks.
I just need to know
the whole program.
I see this, I understand that, but our metrics on who grades it,
what's going on, what's it, what's it compared to?
I mean, when I was in business, you know, we had performances like,
you know,
council Member Snyder was saying, you know, here's what you have to agree to
in here.
It's kind of it's kind of open ended.
It seems to me. I just unless there's more into it.
And I'd like whenever you get a chance, I'd like more information on that.
Yeah.
And if I could, I think it'd be important to get,
probably our top of my head, Shawn public safety side.
Because one of the biggest reasons this program came into existence
was because of the difficulty in getting,
good union members to jump into a management role,
and they could speak much more eloquently, than I could about it,
but that that I know that will could creep up as an issue moving forward.
Yeah.
I guess I'll end with my comments with of just I mean, I when I was someone
that asked for these numbers and I was I mean, I hate to be dramatic with it,
but I was shocked that it's that much money.
I think to the public for 50 employees like that number is huge.
And again,
and the idea that we've just done a pay study, we've gotten everybody a very
competitive market rate that we've compared to other cities to it.
It just is something we have to reform in some way.
And again, on the points about like performance and incentives
and metrics, I think that makes sense.
I would be willing to have a little bit of a hybrid system, maybe for 2026,
where we set aside 100 grand rather than over 300,000, and
and ask the staff to look at a new program that could be done.
And then with council approval, could go ahead, would do that.
I mean, that's what I'm comfortable with.
I think just seeing these numbers is too much, especially knowing the
the increases in salaries that have happened
because of our pay studies and and that had to happen too.
But I just think in general, the benefits is something
we've been wanting to understand more and to show some of it. So,
I'll leave it at that.
Any other
comments or questions?
I mean, I feel like that gives a little bit of direction, but
let me ask you a question, Janie.
Then what do you think about, pulling, pulling across
and bringing the staff back on to the self-insured policy?
I understand where you're coming from, Vicky, but I think that's way
bigger conversation that I just don't think we have time for tonight.
So I proposed my hybrid thing, and I appreciate you doing that,
but I just think that's opening up a huge can of worms for tonight.
That's going to delay us much more.
So I just would say we can't have that discussion tonight.
Any other questions or comments?
I support the 100,000, and I'd be willing to work with staff
and figuring out a fair system to, create this incentive program
as what I.
I think that's the
thing we're looking for pretty clear consensus,
because in a way, we're doing this a little out of order.
It's not that there's a policy change that's having an impact on the numbers
we're trying to back into it.
So if there's a consensus on a number
that you want it reduced budget wise, and then the policy has to change
after the fact, that's what
we would need direction on here tonight.
How about we go down the line again, maybe just say again, no,
you don't want it anymore.
Or if you're okay with $100,000 in the budget that.
Chris, you think that's a fair way to do it or what?
What do you think?
I think that's fine.
I mean, if you have differing amounts to discuss,
certainly, but I've heard two comments on 100.
That's a
a starting point for discussion.
Sure.
If you want to change a number, that's just fine. To
Ron. I'll start over there.
Sorry.
I would say, you know, let's rework it.
But I think maybe going down to 100 is a little too much.
In the first bite.
You know, I wouldn't be happy going any more than half, you know.
So 154 or whatever.
I'm at I'm at zero.
Okay.
I mean, I'm fine going with 154.
If we could get a good, consistent consultant or a consensus on that number.
So 154.
I mean we've done zero.
I'm feeling really frustrated and
I'm going to say I'm going to say 308
because I without without additional conversation about,
about my proposal, I'm going to stay at 308.
Mayor, do you want to add anything?
I have.
No, it's that's up to you folks. Ok.
why don't we move on to kind of our last item,
the memberships, which will probably take a while to.
But let's do what we can.
Yeah.
So really simply here, here we are reintroducing
we talked about this at a prior workshop.
But we're calling it out here again.
And in the packet we provided a little more detailed analysis on
just what each one of these,
city memberships is, the amount
and then some narrative on what it provides for the city.
So I guess if there were any of these memberships
that council wanted to call out or ask additional questions,
I don't know if I feel the need to read off the six pages
worth of narrative on what each one of them does, but
and when we were compiling this two, we spoke to most of these,
different organizations.
And most of you, if you ever want to be willing to come down and provide you
with whatever presentation you want to.
Maybe
we'll go right into the questions and thoughts, if that's okay.
Fran. Any questions?
So the League of Minnesota Cities, membership,
do we have to have that membership in order
to get the insurance and everything through the league
first?
Yes. And it's also beyond the insurance.
There's a a lot of other things to Framingham,
like we could get the number of contacts and calls that we've made through
staff to, to the various aspects of the league.
But it's it's a lot of different things that they do
for for the city of Red Wing.
And then for, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.
Is anybody in the room on that?
Also,
you know, I, I guess I'd like to know, I mean, is that do we get our money's
worth from that, that one, I would say I go back to I think I was here
maybe a year or two and, we had a,
assistant council administrator named Jeff Holbrook, and the council
was asking about memberships, and I just remember vividly what he said.
He said the to the council is said to be derelict in your duty,
up out of that partnership or that coalition, and that's all he said.
I would elaborate that the coalition utility city is, is,
extremely important because, first of all, it's a small group of people.
A small group of cities includes like Monticello, Becker, Oak, Park Heights,
Cohasset, Red wing that have these large baseload plants in their communities.
And prior to to its inception, it was always,
what was a David versus Goliath?
And so at least pulling this group together, we have a common voice,
and we are much more effective at the legislature pushing back
or actually having a voice in the conversation about utility taxation.
And probably now more than ever, it's really not just about how utilities
and railroads and pipelines are taxed, primarily utilities,
but it's also what can the state do to assist the communities
that are going to be transitioning?
Because we'll be one of those.
So, the other thing I also wanted to mention
is it's not unusual for the coal ash utility cities.
I serve as a treasurer to boot.
They collect, they have a war chest, so to speak, and we've set a level
that that war chest should never that those resources should never be over
one years annual do so
for example, last year our our dues were in that $50,000 range,
but we also received a check back for 75,000.
So it's not
technically it's that's what we're going to pay.
But we also I just wanted to emphasize that
if we have too many resources, we do on a routine basis
get substantial amounts back.
But so my question was more on the Coalition of Greater Minnesota cities.
I understand the utilities, but the coal, the other one, that
that's a bigger group and it's more this is more like tape.
Yeah, I think you're right. Yep. Thank you.
I think those that groups are important because I respect the league.
I work with the league quite a bit and the league
is great at
representing all cities.
But it's difficult for them to represent
and provide a voice for Greater Minnesota.
So what I think about often is, I mean, it's probably
not even it's a probably not a very well-kept, dirty little secret.
But like the Met Council, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Rochester,
they literally have lobbyists at the Capitol all year. And
greater Minnesota
cities have needs that only the GMC is the voice for those needs.
For example, transportation funding is a is a big one because the Twin
Cities metro area could easily swallow up all the transportation funding.
I think about more recent efforts
and I think about, EMS, all the, issues with the EMS.
They are the voice for that.
They, represent greater Minnesota cities concerns.
The only real voice.
And because they represent little over 100 cities
outside the metro area,
they have sway with legislators.
Thank you.
Questions?
Comments?
Mayor.
The league offers us not only insurance
and maybe our administrator because he's on their board.
Legal assistance.
What else do they offer us?
The city clerk training process.
The training for all of you as both newly elected and and senior elected officials.
There's there's resources
in almost any area of city government that they, they provide.
It's in the coalition.
Then basically they just lobby.
That's I wouldn't say they just lobby.
There's they they, support certain areas is the way I would, I would put it for.
So for example, the other thing that always comes to my mind is,
thinking about the,
the first part of this workshop or talking about wastewater.
I mean, they are the people that,
go to bat for the towns like Ozark, us, where they're going to be for
to put in 100 and $140 million system like we were just talking about.
And they, advocate for those osages, for example, like for,
against, the, the permitting process,
you know, taking things out of the permit that don't need to be in there.
I mean, communities for example, we live on the Mississippi.
We want to keep it clean, too.
But if that makes no scientific
sense,
to spend these, you know, $130 million,
somebody has got to have a voice to push back on that kind of stuff, too.
I'm really hesitant to say they just lobby because it's not
just a lobbying organization.
They're they do a lot of work organizing those 100 communities.
I said, I'll just be blunt about it.
I'm the only finance guy that's on the board.
It's all mayors.
So council administrators, things of that type,
because they're trying to get a voice for the things that are important
to greater Minnesota childcare, housing, all those different programs
to get them funded.
The BPI, which we've used previously to expand
industrial parks to provide funding for, numerous different things.
And I understand, but I'm just looking at it's more than double
what the league does.
And I think the league, at least what I'm hearing now,
the league may be more of a benefit for us.
I don't know.
I mean, obviously everybody has a different view, but
I think the way I always think about it
is they're both great organizations or they're complementary
because the league simply, just by its membership
and through its policy committees, it's that they,
they can't take a position on certain sensitive subjects.
For example, the big one being LGA,
you know, after,
significant number of cities in Minnesota receive LGA,
but primarily that core urban area receives none.
So they can't advocate for things where there's controversy
between greater Minnesota
and the more, urbanized areas.
And so they're just a great complement to each other.
And they and you can see that, by the way, they they work together
collectively on a number of different issues.
Thank you.
So the metro's kind of like us.
They don't get any LGA speak of
for I mean generically that's a point.
I mean, I'm going to come from the I mean, the cost of the greater
Minnesota cities.
And I've had the privilege of attending both conferences
and, quite frankly, they're very similar.
And I enjoy going to both of them.
But, this seems like a pretty high cost
to some me and 1 or 2 other council people
to a, a conference for a couple of days.
Other than that, I don't, I don't,
I'm not involved with them at all.
So, I mean, I do enjoy going to the lake,
Minnesota cities and a lot of times the subject matter is the same.
You know, whether it's a daycare issues or what
have you that we, you know, or cannabis or, or what have you.
So I mean, I would be okay if we didn't continue
with our, membership, but the coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities,
and to me, I don't, you know, the,
coalition of utility cities, I don't know,
are they going to do anything to help us with,
I mean, I'm not sure how they can help
Red Wing, to the tune of $51,000.
Yeah. So what would they do?
And this is a part of how they're due schedule to set up their deuce schedule.
Set up a how much tax capacity those, baseload plants have.
And in your community, Red Wing has the highest basal value of any community.
So we pay the most in the state. Yeah.
So we pay more than the other seven members.
They I just think about recently,
like setting up the Office of Energy Transition, which is really,
helped us start
to develop a strategy for how to address,
when these baseload plants close ours will close them at some point in time.
The Community Energy Transition Grant program was a direct
result of efforts in, I want to say, 2020 or 2021 from this group.
We've recently received $1 million grant out of that program.
And there's also this,
electric generation transition aid that's set up,
as a direct result of the coalition, the utility cities.
It's something out in our future.
So it's not something bright, shiny and, oh, in front of you now.
But if the plant for some reason closed tomorrow,
that program is going to pay us
100% of what the utility paid us this year, and it's going to pay us
95% the 90 than the 85 than 80
rate us provides us a runway.
And it's the nature of the coalition utility cities is
you don't necessarily see this immediate result,
but the long term benefit of the programing
and what we're trying to do is of vital importance,
not only this community, but all those other communities
that have these baseload plants that need to address these transitions.
But Marshall, would we still get that if we weren't paying $51,000 next year?
I doubt it, no, I would say you weren't because
pretty been established plug or I'm sorry, is that already been established?
The transition.
Yeah.
The the that electric generation transition aid program
has been established. Okay.
But Neil,
I think you'll learn really quickly is what the what the legislature give it.
They can take it away.
So there's always going to be that need pressing need to have a voice up there
to continue to keep these programs in place or to get them funded.
I guess where I'm coming from is
this is running
us, and there's what, five members in this organization
say there's seven, seven, 7 or 8 communities.
Okay.
It, seven, including seven, including Red wing right now.
Yeah. That's right, 1000 a year.
And plant is up for a renewal to 54.
We're looking at the shy of a million and a half dollars in just membership
to be part of that group at 51,000 a year
for the next 26, eight years, or whatever it is,
it's going to run us about a million and a half dollars.
Really?
Yeah.
I mean, I can't I'm not I don't have a crystal ball.
I can't tell you what the issues are going to be, because the fees
that you have to remember the are only point out that
the dues are a reflection of what the action plan is like.
What do we need to get accomplished.
So those have been higher and in recent years,
and they have in the past because we've got we need a lot more,
traction, a lot more hours, a lot more work
to not only protect these programs, but to get them established.
So is 50,000 normal?
It's a no.
But I'm not going to tell you that it's in a typical year.
It's the League of Minnesota cities that, you know, basically 18,000.
It is more expensive than that.
And about three times, what is the difference
between the coalition of utility cities and the nuclear waste or energy coalition?
The nuclear waste strategy Coalition is the only municipal member of it.
But it's,
it includes folks like Xcel.
Atomic Energy,
and those other huge, large industrial players
that, like us, have a concern about what's going to happen once that nuclear fuel.
So it's, a quick avenue to, to learn what's going on.
You know, that side of the industry, what's going on at the NRC,
what's going on at Congress related to, spent nuclear
fuel and conceivably, its ultimate disposal.
So that's what that basically is.
Any other comments, questions?
I'm not sure how we want to tackle this one.
Maybe.
Is it okay, mayor if I start on that side again, if anyone's interested in kind of
taking away or a membership,
I don't know if that's probably not the right wording, but
the,
coalition of utility cities, it seems that
the plant's going to be operational till 2054,
and we're paying the most just because it's based on some
who generates the most doesn't mean we get more out of it.
I would I would be fine if we weren't a member of that
and the coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.
I went to that, meeting with,
our council president,
and it was a couple of hours in and we go to our legislators
and, you know, lobby for our legislators, which we can do at any time.
I'm open on that. I just
I don't see where we're getting a bigger benefit from that
than we would from the League of Minnesota.
Cities.
As I'm looking over the,
the report here, I
notice on the Coalition of Utility cities,
the last line of recent accomplishments, the city of Red Wing recently received
$1 million award.
As a direct result of being a member
of the Coalition of Utility Cities.
So I'm I'm struggling
to kind of figure out.
If we got $1 million.
So we kick them to the curb.
I mean, I, I don't I'm,
you know, I'm just saying it like in the common vernacular,
but I think, I haven't given enough thought or consideration to any of these.
So at this point, I'm not willing to say, let's don't do any of them.
I really appreciate the regular and consistent communication
we get from the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.
I've done some of the things that they have sponsored, including the,
the housing summit that I went to in Rochester, which was really helpful.
And I really appreciate and learned so much from that investment of my time
and going down there.
So I think they offer some unique things that aren't.
So, that and they're thinking about greater Minnesota cities
more because
our concerns a lot of times are different than the metro.
And, and I think I heard Marshall say the words like
sometimes are those funds will get gobbled up by the metro.
And so we do need advocates that are doing that.
So I'm not in a position to say that I think that this one should go
or this one should stay.
I haven't given enough thought, but I'm struck by the million dollars
that we got as a direct result of being on the utilities city.
So I'm going to say
I'm going to leave it just as it is.
Any thoughts? Kim.
All right.
Having been here the longest of everyone,
this, I see the benefits of each one of them.
Some of them are more in one year than the next.
There is a definite difference between the League of Minnesota cities
and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota cities
and what they bring to offer and who they represent and how they do it.
But the
only one which is the most reasonable one we have, that overlaps
in many areas is the Southeast Minnesota League of Municipalities.
But it's 50 bucks.
So why would you stay a member?
And I'm not saying that
because I'm currently the president.
That's,
we were going to drop one.
That would be the one I would say to drop, but it doesn't cost us anything.
Hardly. For what they do.
And they have done, some good things in the last few years
with, EMS and also, waste.
Utility, training that they're getting set up.
And so.
Those I think are important to our city.
All of them represent a different aspect.
Even though they do overlap a little bit, they have,
enough uniqueness that
I would stay in,
I think the one I,
I question is coalition of utilities, cities.
I don't know
that there's that much value added.
Particularly since their license is gone, it's going to be renewed.
So, that would be if we're going to eliminate one,
that would be the one I would eliminate.
I guess I'll go next.
I guess that's for we've done.
I just say again, it's shocking to know that we spent over
$100,000 on senior memberships when we could be doing that,
and in my eyes, fire greater things, maybe right here in Red wing.
And so, I mean, I again, I know that they're doing really good things.
I gone to a lot of them, but I really would like us to see again
with the long term things we have going on the wastewater plant.
I think some people want to that law enforcement center discussion today.
I really worry about the budget being at a right size level.
And so I honestly would like us to consider getting rid of the coalition
and the coalition of utility studies and see what that would mean.
And had that be a proposal,
possibly that still this year, I just I see a lot of overlap.
And, I think Excel is going to be where it's at for a while.
And I just would like to see what 1 or 2 years of that savings
would bring.
Yeah.
I'm kind of, along the same lines.
I mean, I, I had no concerns about the coalition
of greater Minnesota cities when I attended.
I just think that it's a lot of money.
For what?
I can see. Bring them.
I don't see where there's $1 million.
It wasn't it.
I didn't see it in my packet anyway.
Last night.
Are you familiar with that?
Page ten.
What did we get $1 million for?
That's what, Marshall was referring to. The,
in 2020 or 2021, they
fund, established the, energy transition.
And yes, Monticello got some initial grants.
And we finally, were asked to apply
and get that grant in 2024.
And that's the beginnings of that's a coalition use utility cities, right?
They were instrumental in setting up the program
and then the legislature, funded the program in 2022 or 2023.
And then we got the grant in 2024.
So it's it's all tied into
what the what the coalition of utility cities
lobbying for back into the ability is not greater Minnesota cities.
Correct? Correct.
Okay. Yeah.
And I think you mentioned Vicki
the coalition of Greater Minnesota cities
when you made that statement.
No, I said the Coalition of Utilities and Utilities.
Okay. Then I misunderstood. I apologize.
So, I mean, I could I could see us
saving the almost $37,000,
at this point, and I did.
I mean, I struggle, I struggle
with because I think, I think the, the cost for the coalition
of utility cities is I mean, that's going to come every year
and we're going to have a plant for utility
for to 2050 for.
So the community is going to spend a lot of money on a membership
that for the most part, I don't know what else they can do.
I mean is, unless somebody can answer that question, where do we get
$51,000 rather than benefit, other than, yeah, I'm good.
If you give me two seconds, I'm
glad you did, because I feel like I owe the community of biology because
what the coalition of utility cities does
is protects the tax base that currently exists.
Yes, the plant will be there until the end of license.
What will the taxable value, what taxes roll up will actually
come to the community?
That's to be determined.
The the Coalition to Utility Cities is that voice that pushes back
against legislative or agency actions or anything else
that affects the utility valuations.
Hence the taxes that community receives.
And just to live in theaters for 25 years, there have been,
so many instances where it going.
The coalition utility says because of the way
its membership is constituted, has been able to push back
and get legislation either changed, redirected, have ANC efforts
reviewed to protect the tax base that we have.
Just keep saying this.
And I apologize, but if l Excel has a sniffle
for laying in bed with pneumonia, the implication
of a small change on utility value has immense ripple
effects across this entire community, because they are such a huge part
of our tax base, but basically
50, 45 to 40% of our tax base.
And they have a very
well-respected,
business purpose of having their taxes reduced.
It's something they do each and every year.
This is kind of your,
this, membership
really is an investment in maintaining keeping that tax base.
Can I ask a follow?
So does Goodhue County and the school
district pay it all for that because it obviously affects on the tax impact?
No, they do not because it's a coalition of utilities cities and the in
the question comes up because it's come up before we've talked about it
is do we offer
do we make the membership broader.
But then the cities lose control over their specific issues,
or they get watered down because the counties come in
and they want to just they tend to want to take over everything.
And the school district has a different set of,
of, concerns, obviously, because they're on the per pupil formula.
So it's just a we've talked about it, but we have expanded that membership.
Okay.
Ron, you want to comment,
as far as utility cities goes, I think, you know,
maybe we should wait until we have, you know, a firm answer that.
Yes, they're going to re license.
They're actually going to go through because they have not received their NRC
yet. They also, you know, once you get the NRC approval,
it's going to come back to, to excel, you know, and here's the here's
what we have to do to operate for those additional 20 years.
Then they have to go to the Public Utilities Commission
and say, okay, here's what it's going to cost us.
Are you going to go, let us have rate return,
in order to and make a profit on this.
And if they can't make a profit, you know,
they would maybe would say no.
So the one thing the issue I have with, with
this is I'm a live within your means guy.
So the way I look at Red Wing and the way Red Wing
has spent money over the past, the money coming from the nuclear plant,
we've installed a lot more infrastructure and parks and trails and everything else
that other cities our size can't because they're not a utility city.
Right? So what we're asking is where we want to go.
We want to continue to have a spending binge for 20 more years.
And then once the plant's done and we know it's going to be done,
then we want somebody to wean us off.
And I just have a hard time with that.
I think
you should take care of your own city and not have everybody else in the state
having to, to wean you off.
So but I think maybe it's premature to, to say
get rid of that one just until we have, you know, the think is dry
and that the things with relicensing.
And as far as the
coalition of greater Minnesota cities, I'm not sure if of almost $37,000 a year.
I mean, obviously the biggest one for me is I think of the EMS stuff,
you know, if they're able to do anything to help us start plugging the holes in
or getting this service, you know, our ambulance service,
but I don't I'm not sure if you know that $37,000 would be
better invested just using in our current ambulance service.
So I'll go with whatever everybody else wants to do with that one.
I think the League of Minnesota Cities is is a pretty big advocate for EMS,
certainly not.
Yeah. Please do.
Yeah. Thank you.
So not necessarily because not all cities have an ambulance.
And the there is a Minnesota Ambulance Association.
But the president of that is a private or hospital based ambulance.
So really the only voice we have inside of that for the legislation
for our community in our towns is the greater Minnesota cities. So.
All right.
I think we heard from everybody.
Do you want to I know we're getting we're at 759.
Not that we can finish by eight, but do we want to kind of give
a final wrap up again on Levy current status I know Chris,
I don't know if you want to
do this after that, but just kind of we did have maybe a plan
for kind of taking items we talked about tonight,
and then how could we bring that to a next meeting
so we can get again, kind of another update on the budget.
Do you want to talk about that first or should we go to the levy.
Let's go to the stuff okay.
Current status.
All right.
So after a couple of hours here,
Where we're at currently,
we're in we're in very good shape
with where you wanted us to be
when we started with this back in June.
And then throughout this process in August and in September.
Sorry, I don't have my mic on.
So coming into tonight with all those administrative changes
and other things, factored in,
we sat at a 3.25% levy increase.
One thing that is not shown here is we were also able
to reduce the fund balance draw to just below $1 million.
So a reduction to the good on
I think the two main key metrics
that you all have decisions to make on,
with a few additional things from tonight,
I think it's reasonable to say we could
make a slight reduction
that you all are comfortable with to the levy, getting it closer to the 3%,
and then also reducing that fund balance to even further.
The big question would be
to what degree
do we want to make some of those reductions?
I think the things I was adding up in my head was,
reduction of the performance pay.
We were looking at probably 154,000.
That's going to be
now, that's going to be citywide.
So probably a levy impact of around 100.
There.
The reduction of the one position that's going to be around a 10th of a percent.
So the real question is to what degree do you want us to
further draw down the levy from the 3 to 5%
we came into the night with, and then the rest
being spent on the fund
balance towards the really big,
big question.
I think we would have.
So you could provide general responses to that right now,
but it actually is a perfect segway to what we talked about earlier today.
We could so we've got it.
I don't know if the actual schedule it's in, the actual staff report,
the remaining two meetings are the, the,
special meeting, truth and taxation meeting on December 1st
and the City Council regular meeting, the adoption of the levy on December 8th.
We do have,
obviously council meeting next Monday and then following,
second meeting in November is the 24th 24. Yes.
So I don't think we'd have, an easy turnaround for next Monday.
Maybe it could be,
but we could kind of recalculate and look at the impacts of these
for either next Monday or for sure by the 24th,
and bring back not the entire budget, but just some.
Here's where we're at.
Update if you if you wanted to see that rather than
just crossing your fingers and waiting for the truth and taxation meeting
so I mean, I think it'd be really appropriate
to have something on the 24th
so that we're going into the December meeting with a pretty,
you know, again, confident,
clear, you know, idea on what the budget's going to look like.
So I know I want that, but what what do others think.
What what kind of do people need I, I want that on the 24th.
I have a question
on the, firefighters position.
Is it 1 or 2?
Is that decided on? Okay.
Thank you.
Yes, please.
Any update that we can get is always helpful whenever, whenever it's available.
I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Other comments or questions I'll say an update on like where we're at
with the levy, with the reductions that were brought forth tonight.
And then you know, you're talking about like fund balance.
Now draw and fund balance down so much.
So maybe some information on,
you know,
if we bring it down with just a balance and and keep our the fund balance
the way it is, you know and what we get down
to with the levy and then we can go from there to see, okay.
If we, we didn't do as much fund balance
to bring it down, you know, to get it back to.
Yeah. I understand what you're saying. Yeah.
That's fair.
It's almost on like page 11 where you have all the different proposals and budget.
If we could have another little bracket with, like, you know, fund balance draw
or something would be really helpful.
So yeah,
I'll read anything else, any other comments
or we'll move to public comment.
Okay. Hearing none here.
I'll move on to number three. Again.
We have public comment this evening.
Is there anyone that would like to provide public comment?
A second time?
Is there anyone that would like to do public comment?
I can hear some rattling.
Yeah.
Last time.
Is there anyone in the chamber that would like to do public comment?
Seeing none, I will adjourn us. Thank you.