[0:00] All right.
[0:01] We'll do the official start.
[0:04] This is November 3rd,
[0:06] city Council workshop,
and we have a couple items.
[0:09] First workshop item is, wastewater
treatment facility plan.
[0:12] So I will hand it over to Shawn and Kelsey
and welcome to our consultants.
[0:18] Thanks for being here tonight.
[0:20] Good evening.
[0:20] Included in your packet is the draft,
wastewater facility planning document.
[0:26] It's, I think just it's 400 pages.
[0:28] I assume everybody's read that word.
[0:29] For what? Arsenal's perfect.
[0:31] Yeah. Okay, great.
[0:32] Anyway, so we're gonna we've
got our friends here from Bolten Menk
[0:36] that are going to go through a PowerPoint
kind of give a high level overview
[0:39] that should be done in 4 or 5 hours.
[0:41] And moving on.
[0:43] Kelsey had a couple things on the timeline
she wanted to highlight and
[0:47] yeah, just
[0:48] a reminder, this has been sort
of a three year process in 2023.
[0:52] We started with a feasibility study
with SCH, and they kind of outlined
[0:57] some of the needs
that we had moving forward.
[0:59] 2024, we had an RFQ for an engineering
[1:02] firm to do the facility plan
and that was selected.
[1:05] And they spent almost two years
working on this plan.
[1:08] So the first year was a lot
of, asset information
[1:11] gathering,
but we had on our at our facility.
[1:14] And then the next year
was planning out the alternatives
[1:17] and all that sort of thing.
So it's been a long time.
[1:19] They've been working on it.
[1:20] So we have Jacob Pichelmann
[1:23] with Bolton Menk,
with Ryan Helgardiner, and then Hannah.
[1:28] Thank you.
[1:28] Kelsey
[1:31] Well. Thank you.
[1:32] It's good to see everyone again.
[1:33] I think last time we were in April,
we did the,
[1:37] wastewater plant tour, so hopefully
that was a good experience for everyone.
[1:40] And, you get to see, the full extent
of the need out there, right?
[1:45] So that's the goal.
[1:45] And there's a lot of important decisions
that gotta be made here,
[1:49] by the city council.
[1:50] So that's
what we'll be talking about today.
[1:52] I know your time is valuable, so I'll try
to keep it to, like, 15 to 20 minutes.
[1:56] And then, if there's any questions along
the way, don't hesitate,
[2:00] to stop me. So.
[2:05] So what are we talking about
as a wastewater facility plan?
[2:08] As Kelsey stated, you know,
this is a about a two year process
[2:11] that we started in 20, 24, in the spring.
[2:15] And it's kind of like at this moment.
[2:16] So what what does the wastewater facility
plan Covid 20 planning document?
[2:20] So we're looking at,
[2:22] the City of Red Wing needs over
the next 20 years that can be,
[2:25] from a permanent perspective
or capacity perspective, basically,
[2:29] your ability to treat your wastewater over
[2:31] the next 20 years
is what's encompassed in this report.
[2:34] So, we looked at things
like community growth,
[2:37] that includes your both residential
and industrial, projections.
[2:43] You support,
six industrial uses in town at the moment.
[2:46] Looking at your 20 year design condition
and your flows,
[2:50] your loading capacity at the plant,
[2:52] and then ultimately looking at your
existing infrastructure, your evaluation,
[2:55] what is your ability to meet those 20 year
needs with the existing infrastructure
[2:59] that you have?
[3:00] And what kind of improvements do
you need to consider, into the future?
[3:04] So that includes permanent regulations.
[3:06] That's a big consideration.
[3:07] You know, your ability
to meet your current permit limits
[3:10] and what possibly could come in the future
that could impact the type of processes
[3:13] you have out there and the type of money
that you need to spend to do that.
[3:17] And then looking
at all those types of alternatives,
[3:20] basically throwing everything at the wall
and seeing what sticks and making
[3:24] sure there's no stone left unturned,
to be thorough in this process.
[3:29] So you're looking at every possible
alternative.
[3:32] And obviously with that cost analysis,
funding analysis, user rate
[3:36] analysis, all those things
that you're going to care about,
[3:38] and ultimately,
[3:40] coming into the conclusion of what's
[3:41] recommended of capital
improvements over the next 20 years,
[3:44] this report is important
for more than just that.
[3:47] It is required, for PCA project approval.
[3:51] So we need to submit this thing
to the PCA for approval.
[3:54] And that's really the first step
of the process, in a long phase
[3:58] to actually implement improvements,
including design and construction
[4:01] that would occur after this.
[4:02] So we're still at the planning level,
[4:04] what you'll be seeing later
in this presentation
[4:06] or planning level estimates,
that they will be refined
[4:09] further as you get into the design
and construction phases.
[4:13] The other thing that this
[4:13] report does is it's required
for being eligible for state funding.
[4:18] So, this allows you to get on
[4:21] or state funding lists to be considered
for, low interest loan opportunities,
[4:25] grant opportunities and all those things
that, are needed to make this project
[4:29] affordable for the community.
[4:33] So diving into, community growth,
[4:36] just to cover some of the slides,
we actually talked about,
[4:39] the wastewater site
when we met at the conference room there.
[4:43] So reiterating some of the things
we already talked about, which is,
[4:47] make sure you remember
some of the important needs here.
[4:49] So community growth,
[4:51] when we did it, complete
a 2040 community plan, I think in 2019.
[4:55] So we did use population estimates
from that document.
[4:59] 2020 census population of,
just under 16,800,
[5:04] with a 2040 projected population
of just under, 18,000.
[5:08] So what we did for a 20 year
planning document is extrapolate
[5:11] that to 2045, which is 20 years from now.
[5:15] And it came up with a designed population
of just under 18,100.
[5:20] So that gets baked into,
wastewater projections
[5:23] and your ability
to treat that waste, from all your users.
[5:26] The other thing we did was engage with,
the community development department.
[5:31] It's not just looking at 20 needs.
[5:34] We wanted to at least,
you know, given the constraints
[5:37] of that existing site,
you have to be able to know,
[5:40] with a little more certainty that,
you know, even in 40, 50 years
[5:43] from now, that that site and support,
your potential growth.
[5:47] So looking at, 20
[5:50] plus years beyond so undeveloped,
properties within city limits,
[5:54] community development identified
something like 450 acres or,
[5:58] just under 1600 units of,
rather than just development.
[6:02] And there's also areas outside of the city
limits that could be potential
[6:06] for annexation to 675 acres
or just under 24,
[6:10] under residential units, for a total of
about 4000 residential units.
[6:15] So you add all that up?
[6:16] You're talking in an ultimate population,
of over 25,000, potentially.
[6:22] You know, it's kind of a crystal ball
type stuff.
[6:24] And you don't really know
if and when that's going to happen,
[6:27] but it's at least as part of the decision
making process to be able to take that a
[6:31] number of it.
[6:31] Okay.
[6:32] You know, if we build something here,
we expect to be the last another 50,
[6:35] 60 years.
[6:36] Currently this structure has
or is this likely to be viable long term?
[6:41] I think you'll find the answer is yes.
[6:44] Lastly, as far
[6:45] as growth for us,
we did talk to your industrial users.
[6:49] You have six permanent industrial users.
[6:51] Of those, three are significant,
[6:54] as far as their loadings
and inflow contributions.
[6:57] So the total, as far as, flows,
you're looking at eight, 12%
[7:02] of your overall flows at the plant,
which is, the smaller piece of the pie.
[7:06] But as far as the pollutant
loading impacts,
[7:08] which is really
what the wastewater plant is doing. Right.
[7:10] If you had perfectly clean water
coming out of your sewer system,
[7:13] you could just discharge the river.
[7:14] The purpose of the plan is to remove
the pollutants and, the pollutant
[7:18] loadings coming from the industrial
be for two years, can go 35 to 50%.
[7:23] So they are a much bigger footprint
when it comes to those.
[7:25] So, we are projecting some growth
with industrial contributions
[7:30] and, overall,
a little bit of growth in your flows.
[7:33] In other words, in the next 20 years.
[7:37] This is on a map,
that we got from community development.
[7:40] So it just shows those areas
to future development.
[7:44] So the areas to the west are within city
limits that that's a 450 acres or so
[7:49] that could be developed in the area
[7:50] to the east and east of the high school
is that 675 acres,
[7:55] that is outside of the city
limits currently that could be developed.
[7:58] So all in all, again,
kind of a guessing game with
[8:01] whether or not
that's going to happen and when.
[8:04] But again, we wanted to at least,
[8:07] think about this for the future.
[8:11] So getting into some of the history
that we talked about in depth last time,
[8:15] and that was really the
[8:15] the purpose is getting everyone out there
to see these things historical.
[8:19] Your history
and some of the, the precedent that,
[8:22] you know, you had them at home
as far as making improvements.
[8:24] And it's pretty consistent
with any other community.
[8:27] You know, typically every 20 to 25 years,
you're
[8:31] having to do a major infrastructure
project at your wastewater plant.
[8:34] The original plan was constructed in 1960.
[8:36] That's 65 years ago.
[8:38] And over that timeframe,
you've had that happen with compliance,
[8:42] records and maintenance of the plan
that's allowed.
[8:45] That's allowed to last
as long as it has remained.
[8:48] So it's really a testament to
the operating uses that we have on hand.
[8:51] But these things don't last forever.
[8:54] So again, you're looking at the capital
improvements every 20 to 25 years.
[8:59] So, you know, following that timeline
around 1980, 20 years
[9:03] after the original project,
is when you do the next project following
[9:06] that, it was 1999 to the 2005 timeframe
when you did a series of projects.
[9:11] So another 20 to 25 years.
[9:13] And then you've done
some smaller projects on your, biosolids
[9:17] digestion site in the last,
you know, 10 or 15 years or so.
[9:21] But, you're in that cycle now, so you're
at that point where you're at 20 years
[9:26] and you really need to start
[9:27] thinking about planning
and designing these things to get it going
[9:30] and positioning yourself to make these
improvements affordable for the community.
[9:36] Talking about your aging infrastructure.
[9:38] So again, 20 plus years since your last
major project at the wastewater plant.
[9:43] So in that sense,
you have a ton of needs out there,
[9:46] where the do
nothing option is not an option.
[9:49] And,
you're not able to just not do anything.
[9:53] There has to be action taken to,
improve, what you have over there.
[9:57] At the very least, retirement, aging,
critical infrastructure perspective
[10:02] that set aside
other things like permitting
[10:05] long term growth, ability
to support your long term growth.
[10:09] So I just want to state that up
front, doing nothing is not something
[10:12] that you can really entertain.
[10:14] So we expect it to serve a slice of,
of different components out there.
[10:17] You structures
[10:18] in your buried pipe, being out there
for 50 to 75 years, you're at 65 years.
[10:22] You can see that in some of the structures
out there, some of the the solving
[10:26] that's happened over the years,
[10:27] going through all the freeze
thaw cycles through the Minnesota climate.
[10:31] You're seeing that I mean,
[10:33] these guys within the last two months
did a pretty significant repair
[10:37] on, trickling in filter cutter
because it's a big chunk of concrete
[10:40] fell off the side and it was, you know, 20
plus grand to be able to fix that.
[10:44] So those things happen
[10:45] at an increasing rate as you,
wait longer and longer to repair
[10:49] some of this infrastructure
[10:50] and you have those, side
expenses that you have to take on.
[10:55] So things like you're building components
and systems, roofing,
[10:58] waterproofing doors, hardware,
electrical distribution systems,
[11:04] those are items
[11:04] that are usually in that 20 to 30 year
range for expected useful life.
[11:08] And then, things like the process,
mechanical and chemical, feed components,
[11:13] the things that make the plan work
and actually treat the buildings
[11:16] that are in direct exposure
[11:18] to that wastewater
is typically more like a 20 year item.
[11:21] So, you're right there
with a lot of those things.
[11:24] As far as the overall age.
[11:25] And then in the last project, because,
you know, 20 years of wastewater exposure
[11:29] with some of the stuff. So,
[11:32] you know, I like to compare it
to your guys's homes or businesses.
[11:35] Right.
[11:35] Every 20 years replacing the roof,
you're saying your doors are hardware,
[11:40] your, water heater, your boiler.
[11:43] All the little systems in your house
and the tens of thousands of dollars.
[11:47] Right.
[11:48] Take that in a wastewater plant
[11:51] and it's tens of billions of dollars.
[11:52] It's the same thing you got,
you got to replace these things
[11:55] as they get old.
[11:59] So beyond just aging infrastructure,
[12:01] it's there's other outside factors
that are a driving force in this process.
[12:06] It's permitting
and the limitations of the existing plant.
[12:10] So as far as a permanent perspective goes
to PCAs is undergoing
[12:14] their nutrient reduction strategy
that we actually got some news on.
[12:17] They may be pausing that for a little bit.
[12:19] We'll see what that actually means.
[12:21] But you know,
[12:22] we expect over the next 5 to 10 years
that you will have a relationship
[12:26] that, that will significantly alter
the types of processes
[12:29] you need to have in that plan.
[12:31] What you have out there right now
will not nitrogen.
[12:34] Another one is total sulfate, for class
for your wild rice standards, sulfate.
[12:39] It is toxic to wild rice,
[12:41] we suspect is your next permit
that you will have a sulfate limit.
[12:44] There's not really, from a treatment
standpoint, anything to do with that one.
[12:48] That's more of a matter of,
you know, getting a variance or something
[12:51] to kind of kick the can down the road
because it's not something
[12:53] you really treat for.
[12:54] But, another one to think about PFOA
or forever forever chemicals or a hot
[13:01] button topic that, that probably most of
you have heard about at this point.
[13:05] You know, that's another one
[13:06] where the PCA is starting
to implement their biosolids, strategy.
[13:10] And now, operators out
there are taking samples
[13:13] for p 500 mile cells to verify
where they sit.
[13:17] You know, and fortunately you're
in the lower tier as far as we know.
[13:20] So, you may not have much implications
[13:24] for us in your bio,
so I'll just it's a good thing.
[13:27] So the big driver there is really a huge
reduction if you get on the nitrogen limit
[13:32] at that point, the types of processes
out there will not work.
[13:37] The other
factor is your existing facility.
[13:39] So again, your biological treatment
process is limited.
[13:44] Not just in what they can treat,
but also the space that it takes up,
[13:49] you can't accommodate the growth
that you would,
[13:51] possibly foresee
with the existing processes out there.
[13:55] There's no room to build the same thing
that you have.
[13:58] You can rehab it.
[13:59] You can construct, new in its place,
but you're not expanding that process in
[14:05] any substantial manner that would account
for your growth potential.
[14:09] So with that, you have a small site.
[14:12] It is a four acre site.
[14:13] It's sandwiched between the Mississippi
River and a railroad.
[14:16] There's very limited space out there.
[14:18] And it's limited
to three miles of storage.
[14:20] You know, the operators are having
to haul off 20% of your biosolids
[14:24] each year to other communities
because there's no room to the storage
[14:27] at the tanks to do it,
and there's no way to build new ones.
[14:30] Other issues,
including floodplain, access,
[14:34] issues, getting to the plant
during flood conditions, could be address
[14:38] and code compliance issues, especially
in your biosolids digestion process where,
[14:43] there's a ton of work and expense
associated with separating that out.
[14:47] So it means, code compliance
or fire protection.
[14:50] So, variety issues
with the existing plant.
[14:55] So getting it
[14:56] into general alternative is to kind of
take a setback at high level.
[15:00] The next slide will get a little more
granular for the types of alternatives we,
[15:04] looked at.
[15:05] But just at a high level, you know,
the first thing we want to look at is
[15:09] constructing new technologies
on the existing site.
[15:13] You know, you have a process
that takes up a lot of room.
[15:15] It's very efficient.
[15:16] And what it does, it's good for the limits
you have to meet now.
[15:19] But if you look at future amendments
are going to be able to do that.
[15:21] So, being able to identify new processes
that are going to support
[15:26] your foreseeable roles and also be
expandable is to allow you to to build off
[15:31] and and build a more infrastructure,
which apparently can't do,
[15:35] and then have that infrastructure
meet your current and future needs.
[15:39] The other component with
this is maximizing reuse
[15:42] of existing infrastructure.
[15:43] So a big cost savings is
you do have stuff on that site
[15:46] that has value
that you can repurpose into new things.
[15:50] And that saves money the long term versus
this next alternative
[15:54] that we'll talk about.
[15:55] So constructing a new facility,
an alternative site.
[15:59] The main benefit with that
is that it gives you,
[16:02] you know, surplus space,
to think about for future growth,
[16:06] whether or not you needed it, you know,
so at least we wanted, to take a hard
[16:10] look at what that looks like,
[16:12] so you can see the costs are
and realize that it's pretty expensive.
[16:16] We've got a plan.
[16:17] Largely due
to the demands of your wastewater.
[16:19] You have to plan on it
to a different location.
[16:22] It's been a lot of the money
and piling in, pummeling us.
[16:25] And overall, you'll see that
it is by far the highest expense.
[16:29] Other
options that, we entertain as a part of,
[16:32] the facility plan is, you know, what
it cost to rehabilitate what you have.
[16:37] We are.
You said this is not really viable.
[16:40] Staff will do nothing.
[16:41] It's also really not viable
to rehabilitate what you have because,
[16:45] a you don't have,
the space for expansion.
[16:48] And you're also allowing us to to process,
you're not able to do that with,
[16:52] there's also the issue
with the future terminal limits.
[16:55] If you get a limit in the next ten years,
that investment
[16:58] you've made in your existing process
is the same investment.
[17:02] It's, it's a poor investment.
[17:04] So we would not, suggest investing
[17:07] significant dollars
and just redoing what you have.
[17:10] You may have to, address things
as they come up over
[17:14] the next few years, but to build
what you have is not a good idea.
[17:19] Yeah.
[17:20] Option here is regionalization
that we talked quite a bit about,
[17:24] the last time around.
[17:25] Excuse me.
[17:27] So we, we took a hard
[17:30] look at this, and there's some practical
engineering issues, actually, Regionalize,
[17:35] you know, there's also,
you know, the business, a wastewater.
[17:40] Right?
[17:41] And you'll be able to plant
that supports your community,
[17:44] your growth, taking care of your needs.
[17:47] You know, as soon as you regionalize,
you become,
[17:50] often a customer
of a sanitary sewer district,
[17:54] you know, you get out of the wastewater
business in that sense,
[17:57] and you lack control,
setting your own rates,
[18:01] you know, doing the types of improvements
that you want to do.
[18:04] So there's that issue, you have,
[18:08] you know,
the engineering issue is the goal.
[18:10] And where you stand, who is going
to be contributing to that plan?
[18:14] There's not a good, sop for that,
[18:17] you know, relative to communities
around you.
[18:21] So from those reasons, regionalization
is not, considered by a player,
[18:26] it doesn't mean that you can
[18:27] create capacity and accommodate growth
for someone else to develop in your career
[18:32] or there's
[18:32] which to you, the future, but
[18:34] you're not looking to build a new plant
somewhere outside of the city.
[18:37] And it's just as an analysis
and get it there and then have to,
[18:42] construct this answer.
[18:42] This is a district
that would still be a customer.
[18:46] So for those reasons,
regionalization is not considered
[18:51] the best option.
[18:55] So getting into the alternatives analysis,
we won't spend a ton of time
[18:59] on on the processes themselves,
but just kind of,
[19:02] clumping that
in a few different buckets here.
[19:04] So the one, is the rehab,
your existing plans.
[19:09] And then an alternative to two through
six, is kind of,
[19:13] one bucket of getting a new technology
on the existing site.
[19:18] And we looked at five different processes.
[19:20] That would help reduce the footprint
of the treatment
[19:23] technology and allow you to,
[19:27] provide more space
for the future of the structure.
[19:29] And then the last alternative
is also through the seven,
[19:32] which is relocating the plant
to an entirely new site.
[19:35] So, there's two really components
to this, right?
[19:38] It's the costs,
which might have some sticker shock on
[19:41] some of those tasks
right across the board,
[19:44] even if some of the rehab alternative
is not just to rehab what you have.
[19:49] There's also the evaluation criteria,
you know,
[19:51] regardless of the cost,
do these improvements meet our needs?
[19:56] So strictly from a cost basis,
there's kind of three tiers.
[19:59] The first tier is a rehab.
[20:01] You're looking at something
like $60 million to rehab what you have.
[20:04] And again, I'll remind everyone
this is planning level estimates.
[20:07] We have a construction
estimate of just over 42 million.
[20:10] There's a 20% contingency just to consider
whether they're running the ones we have
[20:14] at this stage of the game.
[20:16] Once you get into design,
you consider narrowing that contingency
[20:19] and getting some other numbers.
[20:20] But I think, for the process,
that's a good estimate.
[20:25] And then saw cost, added on top of that
for a total of 60 million.
[20:30] Next tier is that, you know, building
new technologies on the existing site.
[20:34] The alternatives two through six,
you know, they're all, within a fairly
[20:38] narrow cost
range, 140 to $150 million proximately.
[20:44] And then the last year is moving the plant
altogether to a new site,
[20:49] $250 million estimates,
or, costs escalate quite a bit,
[20:53] but you have to convey that wastewater
internally somewhere else
[20:56] and then and build a brand new plant
and then not incorporate
[20:59] some of your existing
infrastructure in that plant.
[21:03] Yeah.
[21:03] Can I just ask two questions really quick
before you go on?
[21:06] Yeah.
[21:07] The, where it says B, an R and B
[21:10] are assumed
that's the, the type of facility site.
[21:13] Yes. Right. Okay.
[21:14] And then can you tell me what
O and R stands for.
[21:17] Peace of Omar's operation
maintenance and replacement costs.
[21:21] Thank you. Yeah.
[21:23] So looking at the evaluation criteria,
you know, clearly,
[21:26] alternative, the $160 million is by far
the least expensive, right?
[21:31] Is that the best idea?
[21:32] Answer no, because the only thing
that really does for you
[21:35] is, is it meets your current permitting,
and it has relatively low.
[21:38] And our LMR
costs for your existing plant,
[21:42] as far as its ability to meet future
permitting, its cost is very, very low.
[21:46] It's reliability, ease of operation,
fairly low expandability.
[21:51] It uses the site
very low and capital costs.
[21:54] It's a little counterintuitive,
but that's also very low,
[21:57] because assuming that
[21:59] eventually you will get more permanent
or more stringent requirements,
[22:02] you will have to make an investment
in one of those other options,
[22:06] in which case you need
all the money you have.
[22:09] The problem is it's more or less sunk,
and over the life
[22:12] cycle of these improvements
is going to be the least cost effective.
[22:16] So that
[22:17] is the lowest for other,
all set of attorneys,
[22:22] alternatives, 2 to 6, you know, very.
[22:25] And they're pros and cons
relative to one another.
[22:27] The space utilization and how big
they are, their ability to meet future
[22:32] urban limits, all those things, fluctuate
based on the prices you look at.
[22:38] But ultimately, what we came to
is that alternative five to the bar,
[22:41] which we'll talk about on the next slide
is the best alternative.
[22:45] As far as overall scoring up and down,
especially when it comes
[22:48] to the expandability
and utilization of space on that site.
[22:52] And then alternative seven, scored,
[22:56] kind of the mid-range overall
because it is, you know,
[23:00] you would have the ability
to meet current and future permit limits.
[23:02] You have to rely on the process
that you would build on a new site.
[23:05] It would be expandable,
but capital costs are very high.
[23:09] And then you're also paying extra money
to of that to different sites.
[23:13] There's more energy costs
and, more costs in general for that.
[23:17] Yeah.
[23:17] So why does number three
mean future permitting?
[23:22] And then the rest don't
[23:25] the rest do.
[23:26] So alternative three is an advanced
in process of a membrane bioreactor.
[23:31] Essentially you're incorporating
[23:33] a membrane into your treatment process
that filters out the waste.
[23:37] Essentially, you can get down to very,
very low organics, very low solids.
[23:41] It's just it generally produces
a higher quality effluent.
[23:44] It's it's overkill for what you need
based on the expected
[23:47] permit limitations that we received
from the previous part of this process.
[23:51] So it does for well as for future
programing, because of that.
[23:55] But it's also the more expensive it's
also harder to operate.
[23:58] There's maintenance and repair associated
[24:01] with a number of replace it
every 3 to 5 years.
[24:05] It's all those things
that make it less desirable.
[24:08] Thank you.
[24:09] So for the highs.
[24:10] And that said, before, you know,
in the sense of the alternative, 5 or 6
[24:15] and seven is still a good score.
[24:16] You know, you're able to nature and
the future determines that alternative.
[24:22] You know,
[24:22] the questions
with kind of how the scoring plays,
[24:26] maybe
[24:28] just for like when we talk to our,
you know, people in the community.
[24:31] And of course, I'm no expert on the
alternatives and different things, but,
[24:35] two through six like these are different
[24:38] like chemical or biological ways
of dealing with weight loss.
[24:42] Or is that the most general way to,
like describe it?
[24:46] Yeah, they
[24:47] are all biological treatment processes
and they're all slightly different.
[24:51] Okay. Different way to do the same thing.
[24:54] That all have pros and cons
about how they lay out, how big they are
[24:58] or how effective they are.
[24:59] Yeah.
[25:00] That have kind of the message, you know,
[25:03] and then from the large
big picture perspective,
[25:06] you know, the cost estimating is probably
within the margin of error here.
[25:10] You know,
they're all I would say pretty close.
[25:13] I would confidently say
that alternative is reason
[25:15] the most expensive for the membranes.
[25:17] I would probably say alternative to that.
[25:19] A big process with a lot of things,
would be more expensive than alternatives
[25:23] 4 or 5 and six.
[25:24] So we're very good at stating
relative costs.
[25:27] I think, you know, 140
range is a good,
[25:31] estimate for what you have
in the bill builder, across the board.
[25:34] So thank you.
[25:35] And your and then you would be cited
in some of the based on allegation
[25:39] of our commercial or industrial
like even waste what they're what works.
[25:44] But I did kind of need to clean those
or whatever it is for that.
[25:49] I don't know if that question makes sense.
[25:51] Yeah.
[25:52] That's what you're kind of determining
which process is most appropriate is that.
[25:56] Yeah.
[25:56] Like a good chunk of the report
that indicates, itself to, you know,
[26:00] projecting out your floors and loads
and that analyzes all the alternatives.
[26:04] So we're we're using the same baseline
setup for the treatment of the waste
[26:08] for each alternative.
[26:09] And each alternative varies
in its ability to do that,
[26:13] if that makes sense.
[26:14] That helps a lot.
[26:15] But it's
[26:17] any other questions or.
[26:19] Okay, so I figured
this would be an interesting slide
[26:22] because we could start,
if you have further questions,
[26:27] not to move on.
[26:28] So just getting into a little bit
more on the recommended alternative
[26:31] alternative devices
and the biological area to deliver a bath.
[26:36] And this was selected,
[26:39] largely, due to its footprint
and ability
[26:43] to expand and a lot of the flexibility
with the operations.
[26:47] And it seems very specifically well-suited
for your site
[26:51] and the space limitations you have.
[26:53] So it's for the best
as far as using the site
[26:56] and being able to dedicate space
for future expansion.
[26:59] That's important in this process.
[27:02] There's also and you'll see in the next
figure with, some preliminary
[27:05] site, layouts that,
we have space allocation
[27:09] for future things that you might need,
and you could be more reactive
[27:13] to the future
with space on the site that you couldn't,
[27:16] choose what to do with, that includes
additional miles of storage.
[27:20] That can be tertiary treatment processes
[27:22] if you're having an even more stringent
limits.
[27:24] So, lots of benefits
as far as space consumption.
[27:30] You know, and and lastly, competitive
as far as capital
[27:33] and our costs, with the other
alternatives on the low end.
[27:36] So with all that in mind, you know,
this was identified as the best
[27:40] alternative for your site in your needs.
[27:44] We have other facilities
we built that are, but,
[27:47] there's four other in the state.
[27:49] So it's, it's a tried and true process
that's been around for 25 years.
[27:52] And it has worked well,
in with wastewater
[27:56] that's very similar to years, Northfield
probably the best example.
[28:00] And we took the opportunity to tour that.
[28:03] I think it was last year by this time,
[28:06] to, to see how it works. Right.
[28:08] Because we knew
[28:08] this was going to be a competitive
alternative, with the space layout
[28:12] considerations. So,
[28:15] you know,
[28:16] it's difficult for, you know,
investing in something that's brand new.
[28:19] Either you're not going out on a level,
something that no one else has done
[28:23] before
is also an important aspect of this.
[28:26] And there's four other communities
[28:28] that are very similar to you
that have also built this structure,
[28:32] and this will handle anything
proposed coming down from the LPC.
[28:37] Yeah. So not anything. Right.
[28:40] So as far as we know.
[28:41] Well that's right.
I mean anything that they're looking at.
[28:44] No. This land. Yes. Okay. Yeah.
Thank you.
[28:48] Particularly nitrogen and phosphorus
limits that you already have.
[28:52] If there's some you know
[28:53] I can't predict 20 years from now,
we're looking for three, right.
[28:56] But the big thing is having that space
to do stuff with later on,
[29:00] when you get more strategic urban
elements that are in a lot of our right.
[29:04] So this if, if we need to ask for a
[29:09] I'm calling in the past
I know it's not that nitrogen right now
[29:13] will this handle
the more stringent criteria for nitrogen.
[29:18] Yeah.
[29:19] So they answer that.
[29:21] So like there has been at the, the state
regulatory levels, recent developments,
[29:28] even in the last week where they are,
pausing the nitrogen, regulation
[29:33] and water quality standards for now,
we don't know how long it's going to last
[29:37] to be next week.
[29:38] And I wonder
when we're going to pick it back up.
[29:40] So the solution is, is will receive
the nitrogen
[29:43] when that happens is,
I think, anyone's guess.
[29:47] It could be five years
out of ten years from now.
[29:50] But when that happens, it's going to drive
[29:53] what you need to do on that site. And,
[29:57] that process, can be suited.
[29:59] You could you could build it
and now or not remove nitrogen
[30:03] and then add on to it
later to remove the nitrogen.
[30:05] You could build it all now
[30:07] and then keep cells off line to be able
to dedicated for nitrogen later.
[30:11] There's some flexibility
with this alternative
[30:13] as well as it relates to the
margin that is important to
[30:17] ask your question.
[30:18] Yeah. Okay.
[30:19] And will it eliminate 100% of the nitrogen
or is that not
[30:22] possible? No.
[30:25] So the proposed limit that we got.
[30:27] So it's part of the effluent limit request
that we had to the PCA, is important
[30:32] because we wanted it to have them tell us,
okay, what are we looking at in the next
[30:36] five years?
[30:37] Is a 7.7mg/l.
[30:40] It's pretty.
[30:41] All this process can be removed
below that.
[30:44] It will not 100%, but permit regulations
[30:47] that require, you know, 100.
[30:53] You know, since
[30:55] I think we're good.
[30:59] I’m alreay going long aren’t I?
[31:00] So sorry.
[31:01] So I will try to do some of this stuff
along with the other questions.
[31:08] Yeah.
[31:09] This is the proposed site
layout that we came up with.
[31:12] I mean, you can see the stuff in
the red is important.
[31:14] That's existing infrastructure
that we would either reuse or repurpose.
[31:18] So that's a lot of, infrastructure
that would save money, versus a
[31:22] alternative set on
which you would have to build all the new,
[31:26] and then on the blue,
I mean, the structure is, is new.
[31:30] The back process would be on
the east side
[31:33] there
with some of those little, square cells.
[31:36] And then, in the middle,
you have some additional clarifiers
[31:40] pumping and, biosolids to water.
[31:43] So that actually we've done that before.
[31:45] We're also going to be building one.
Building two.
[31:47] Those are all buildings, that you build,
[31:51] you know, and the other thing,
[31:52] that's important to, to look at with
this is the space for future.
[31:56] So it's a little tough to see,
but there's a black dotted, area now
[32:00] where we see that there's space allocation
for future things.
[32:04] And in multiple different spots.
[32:06] There's other alternatives
where the whole site is just to clean up
[32:09] by what you would have to build on day
one. Right.
[32:11] And there was no possibility for this.
[32:14] This alternative gives you,
additional space.
[32:18] I have a question.
[32:18] How do you how do you do the construction
on something like this
[32:22] and keep the existing plant running?
[32:24] Great question.
[32:25] Yeah, that's another,
advantage of this alternative is that,
[32:30] you can, you know, currently
a good chunk of the existing plant
[32:34] currently doesn't do much, actually,
the intermediate,
[32:36] pumping station in the clarifiers
is in the RBC process.
[32:41] Could
all be taken offline and effectively.
[32:44] That doesn't really change, with what
you're producing out there at the moment.
[32:48] And so this this alternative allows you
to keep your trickling filters online
[32:52] during construction,
which would be needed.
[32:54] And then, you would build this
infrastructure and get it up and running.
[32:58] And then you would have to go back
and deposit filters later.
[33:02] So it's important to keep the process up
and running.
[33:04] And, you know, the smaller footprint is
is an advantage because it allows
[33:09] you more flexibility
to keep more stuff online.
[33:13] How would this do?
[33:14] We have a storage issue right now
the solids.
[33:17] Yeah this is taking more solids out.
[33:19] Or how does this compare to what we,
[33:23] we would project and more solids
production in this process.
[33:27] It's removing more waste lagoons. Right.
[33:29] Little more efficiencies and it's rules.
[33:32] Therefore you generate
a little more waste.
[33:34] So the other good thing about this
alternative,
[33:38] is that it's completely repurposing your,
digestion complex there.
[33:43] It's that, building in the red,
to the west side of the site.
[33:47] There's multiple enforcer roles.
[33:50] So what we would propose is building new
primary clarifiers for the Baff system,
[33:55] and he would convert your existing primary
clarifies that have some complications.
[33:59] So I would say they're obsolete
at this point in that design.
[34:02] We would convert that
to your actual sludge storage.
[34:05] Now you really don't have so you'd have,
something like, I think 700,000
[34:11] or more gallons of additional sludge
storage with its primary clarifiers.
[34:17] And then the digesters
would also be converted
[34:19] into the rolling process
and also used for additional storage
[34:23] so that that whole complex system
do it in two different things.
[34:27] Is now
all dedicated to biosolids through land.
[34:30] And in that space,
just to the west of that,
[34:33] could be dedicated for future storage.
[34:36] You know, one thing
[34:37] operators do, like, is a whole years
worth of biosolids storage.
[34:41] Right now,
you probably wouldn't have that.
[34:43] Probably more like 180 days.
[34:45] But there would be space to do a little
more if you wanted or needed.
[34:54] Any questions?
[35:00] Getting in to another interesting slide.
[35:03] So let's talk costs.
[35:05] User costs.
[35:07] So estimated capital costs at $142
million.
[35:11] Obviously not a small price to, we do,
you know, a basic financing analysis.
[35:16] This is not a user rate analysis.
[35:18] This is to get you in the ballpark,
per year
[35:22] or equivalent residential unit of what?
[35:25] The improvements
would ultimately cost the community.
[35:28] So we make some assumptions on, you know,
[35:31] amortization, 2.5% interest rate, 20 year
loan term.
[35:35] So capital improvements, average
that emerges EIS is $9.1 million per year.
[35:41] You add your own, and our expense
on top of that at roughly 6 million
[35:45] or the $15 million in mean
[35:48] you would need to pass it on
to your users.
[35:51] This assumes
no grain financing to cover any of that.
[35:54] Right?
[35:54] So looking at kind of the worst case
scenario condition here, you know, you
[35:59] would be we'll talk on the next slide,
but eligible for multiple grant, funds.
[36:04] But anyway,
[36:06] to make the comparison here,
your current monthly average sewer bill,
[36:09] based on 600 cubic feet or roughly
4500 gallons per month,
[36:14] it is $48 a month for the average user.
[36:19] The affordability threshold.
[36:20] So this is what the state uses
to determine the grant.
[36:23] Eligibility is taken
as 1.4% of your median
[36:27] household income,
based on your current, average.
[36:31] My, that would be up to about $76 a month.
[36:34] Means that you would need to raise
your rates up to $76 a month
[36:39] in order to access affordability
based grant that we'll talk about
[36:44] as one part of the money that you would
access to pay for, as in structure.
[36:49] So you need to show the state
[36:51] that you are raising your rates
to accommodate this debt service.
[36:54] And then the past a certain point,
[36:56] you will become eligible
for other parts of the money,
[36:59] to take the worst case
scenario as a comparison there.
[37:03] So if you did all the improvements
with no grant financing whatsoever,
[37:07] you would be looking at about $180
a month per residential user,
[37:14] versus the $48 that they currently
pay the 200 plus percent increase.
[37:19] Right.
[37:19] So the goal within an financing scenario
is that,
[37:23] any dollars that the project generates
[37:27] over your affordability threshold, you're
wanting to, you know, cover that, right?
[37:31] You know, if the state says you can afford
1.4%, that's what
[37:35] you don't want to pay
more than that, right?
[37:37] So that's where the grant, programs
can keep getting that little,
[37:43] let's do that.
[37:45] So haven't we been increasing the rates
[37:48] to be able to do this where we, frankly,
[37:51] so that a $48 increase in your Kelsey,
[37:54] which is understandably in
[37:58] person,
[38:00] that's our 2025 fee schedule for that $40.
[38:03] We're proposing another 6% increase
for 2026.
[38:08] We are in the process of redoing
[38:11] our rate study at this time, to see where
we're at.
[38:14] Then. Okay. Thank you.
[38:17] And since 2020, increasing the rates
from 6% a year to try to get us closer
[38:21] to that affordability threshold,
planning for these major improvements.
[38:26] Perfect. Thanks for that.
[38:29] Yeah. It's not an uncommon rate.
[38:30] I mean, your rates are still
[38:32] I would call a relatively low
compared to other communities.
[38:35] That's one slide
I forgot to add is maybe a comparison
[38:38] to where other folks are paying.
[38:39] But essentially any community
that does a large infrastructure project
[38:43] ends up paying up to their affordability
or a little higher.
[38:46] You know, so, you know, usually
when you see communities with lower rates,
[38:50] just because they haven't done a project
in a long time, they're do free.
[38:53] So, you know, $76 is not
you know, it's a lot of money, right?
[38:58] That's not you know, it's not nothing.
[39:00] Right.
[39:00] But, you know, that's
what the state thinks is affordable,
[39:03] based
on where you're at in the community.
[39:06] So what what percentage of projects
[39:11] get the grant money to, to keep it in 76?
[39:14] In our case, $76.40.
[39:16] It's a yeah, it's a ballpark.
[39:19] It's a competitive scoring process.
[39:21] So we'll talk more about the funding.
[39:23] But you get to submit and, your project
to be placed on the project priority list
[39:28] within the clean water revolving Funds
and within Public Facilities Authority.
[39:32] And then you become on a list of,
you know, 4 or 500 projects
[39:35] that you're competing with
for the same pot of money.
[39:39] You know, if you have project needs
that are over your 40 million,
[39:42] you are eligible for that money.
[39:44] There's that that's, you know,
within certain it's just whether or not
[39:48] a legislature appropriates,
a lot of money to cover, state's needs.
[39:54] And if your project is ranked high enough
and that a dotted line is below
[39:58] or you're listed and you were eligible
to receive that money, and usually it is
[40:02] claimed to be a waiting game.
[40:04] And the key here
is positioning the project.
[40:07] So you're in a spot on that list
where and when
[40:10] that money is available,
you're able to utilize it and strike.
[40:15] And then as part of our contract
with both Bolten Menk that you're
[40:17] helping us again with the funding
and the grants in that process.
[40:21] Yeah, that's that's what we do.
[40:23] We have a dedicated funding team.
[40:24] That's all they do
is help with these types of, programs.
[40:28] You know, I would say, you know, I'm
a little bit, I guess, is that,
[40:31] you know, to,
to make you know, our company has by far
[40:36] the most, coverage
as far as aid programs in the state.
[40:40] You know, so we're very well versed in
and these programs
[40:44] are not to get you money.
[40:45] So that's definitely something
we will be helping with
[40:47] and have been helping with
in other projects, including, the tennis
[40:51] station and, drinking revolving fund money
[40:55] that I think is being processed here
shortly, for approvals.
[40:59] And the Soren's Bluff project as well.
[41:01] It got some EPA grant dollars.
[41:03] So we help with all that.
[41:05] Thank you.
[41:11] So a little bit more on the funding.
[41:13] So obviously the
the goal here is to make sure
[41:15] project is affordable for the community.
[41:17] So, you know, another piece of this is
if you can implement projects in phases
[41:22] that can be helpful to break off
chunks of it because you could be
[41:25] you can have multiple phases
of eligibility for some of these programs.
[41:29] So, you know,
with the nature of the improvements
[41:32] you're looking at, you probably looking at
[41:33] maybe up to three projects
that we've talked about with city staff.
[41:36] You know what?
[41:37] What we didn't talk
a lot of the details as well.
[41:38] Look at the baked in those cost estimates.
[41:40] But there is work at the main
[41:41] limitation that we would have,
you know, 4 to $5 million.
[41:44] There's a sewer line project at the Levee
Park, to address any issues.
[41:49] And then there's the wastewater
planning improvements.
[41:51] I would expect if there's
three solid projects out of here.
[41:55] You know, within the hundred
and 42 million that you saw.
[41:59] So funding opportunities, like we talked,
[42:02] the, the PFA, that the Public Facilities
Authority is the, government program.
[42:06] They repairs, these programs.
[42:10] So a lot of revolving fund
is, is launched.
[42:13] Oh interest loan program.
[42:14] So they offer 20 to 30 year, loan terms.
[42:17] Right now, interest rates
are usually hovering in that 2 to 3%.
[42:21] So we would have to that percentage to,
[42:25] cultivate some of the, the cost.
[42:29] The other programs here we're getting into
the grants is the point
[42:32] sources and implementation grants.
[42:33] So that's that program specifically.
[42:35] There for if a community gets
a more stringent limit, like nitrogen,
[42:40] for instance, you would likely be eligible
to dip it into this program.
[42:46] You know, it's the same thing. Okay.
[42:48] You need to be a nitrogen limit.
[42:49] And you go, okay, well,
you tell us, do this.
[42:52] You need money to do it.
[42:54] That's what those programs for us,
[42:56] the thing the legislature did
[42:58] pass higher caps on these programs,
[43:02] which can be a double edged sword because,
you know,
[43:04] that means the projects at the very top
are eligible for even more money.
[43:07] And maybe that dotted line,
calls that up a list, a little bit
[43:11] if, if less projects,
you know, more of the, the bonds.
[43:14] But, overall, you know, it's a good thing
that you're able to access more money
[43:19] through leasing, potentially
up to $12 million, which I wouldn't
[43:22] be fully eligible for based on the major
improvements that we're talking about.
[43:26] The other one is the water infrastructure
[43:29] fund or with that's the affordability
based grant program.
[43:32] So as soon as you hit that affordability
threshold or higher on your debt service
[43:37] for the project, that's where a grant like
this can kick in up to $10 million,
[43:41] which you would be eligible
for based on the cost estimating.
[43:44] So, you know, I fully expect
you're eligible for $22 million
[43:49] between those two programs.
[43:50] Based on what we're talking about today.
[43:53] The real challenge
is actually getting access to those funds
[43:56] and and position yourself to be,
in the driver's
[43:59] seat to get it all sponsored
and competitive in other projects.
[44:01] So that's where you got to, you know,
[44:05] be shovel ready, essentially.
[44:07] And, and show that you're making efforts
[44:10] towards, you know, doing the project.
[44:13] And there's other grants and funds
available for us besides those two.
[44:18] Those are the two major programs
within the Public Facilities Authority.
[44:22] The other ones that were on this list.
[44:24] Here are the special appropriations
program set that funding, that's,
[44:29] direct bonding requests
that you could make to the legislature,
[44:33] to be named in a bonding bill
for a requested amount of grant.
[44:37] And then there's federal funding
that we could go after.
[44:40] Potentially,
[44:45] so you can USDA
[44:47] is the typical, federal funding source.
[44:50] You're actually too big to qualify
under that program.
[44:53] That would be part of the tried and true
federal sources throughout,
[44:57] through the feds, which has a grant alone
that has a 10,000 population cap.
[45:03] So, you actually wouldn't be eligible
for USDA funding in this case?
[45:07] Trying to rack my brain.
[45:09] I don't I'm probably missing something.
[45:11] I could get that. Thanks. Yeah.
[45:15] So it's about funding.
[45:18] That's a big one where, you know, often
you can do the math on the project.
[45:22] Costs, subtract off the grant eligibility
that you would expect
[45:26] through points, sources with programs,
and then you get,
[45:30] you know, maybe a pot of money that you're
still above your affordability.
[45:33] That's where, you know, every request for
that makes sense
[45:37] and is pretty defensible, you know,
with those that is competitive, right?
[45:41] I mean, you know, not everyone gets
direct, appropriation every year.
[45:45] All these requests don't, get approved.
[45:47] So you get to come up with a good
narrative, right as a community, as a
[45:52] as it's been a very well run on this is
you haven't had to rely on other programs.
[45:57] You don't have any existing debt right
[45:59] now, and you're taking care of the needs
of this project long term.
[46:03] Well, that's a pretty good story.
[46:04] You also have a lot of industry
involvement is supported by this plan.
[46:08] And,
you know, there's a growing community
[46:11] and input room to grow,
you know, as another community
[46:14] wants to come over the wastewater towards
you and be a customer of Red Wing.
[46:17] You could potentially accommodate that.
[46:19] So and those are all things
like can get it
[46:21] baked into the narrative of trying
to get those right appropriate as well as
[46:26] we help with the application.
[46:27] So we work with you guys on
[46:31] lastly a couple other minor ones.
[46:34] You a climate resiliency grant.
[46:36] There's some money out there
that could be eligible.
[46:39] So we're in a small practice and a green
project that involved in support of.
[46:43] So basically incorporating green elements
into the into the design
[46:48] that can can cost
to, to do those things but
[46:51] also open up some grant eligibility.
[46:54] Those are smaller chunks.
[46:56] Usually that's considered
[47:01] you know, the questions that are funding.
[47:07] Yeah.
[47:09] Mr. mayor, council member staff.
[47:11] Thank you. Brian Helgardner.
[47:13] I did want to mention that we again,
to brag a little bit.
[47:15] We do have a very robust,
[47:18] dedicated following team
that will look at every avenue out there.
[47:21] We have worked, on multiple projects
in the past to city staff, and,
[47:25] and we've been successful on Main Street,
other projects to lift station.
[47:29] There's a lot of things out there
that we have been successful on,
[47:32] and we will continue
to look at every afternoon out there.
[47:34] We also have a lobbyist on staff now.
[47:37] So we certainly would be able to help
with any lobbying, things like that.
[47:40] I know there's been some concern over
some of the regionalization
[47:44] that's going on out there,
but we at this point are,
[47:48] in a spot where they're not
necessarily ahead of the game on that.
[47:51] They're there to talk about it.
[47:53] But there's not been an actual plan
on how to document.
[47:56] We're actually sitting in a pretty good
spot or the city sitting in a good spot
[48:00] right now.
[48:00] I think it is important
to, to what Jake said about,
[48:04] forwarding as much of the project
as you can and getting a shovel ready.
[48:07] So getting your borings,
getting your design, getting your things,
[48:10] kind of some of that up.
[48:10] Pretty stuff ahead of time done,
[48:13] I think at that point
you will fully be in the driver's seat.
[48:17] I don't think there is any concern over
that regionalization.
[48:19] So, I just want to mention that again,
because that's a major component, right?
[48:24] The cost is pretty low.
[48:24] You look at it and say, oh,
wow, that's a lot of money.
[48:28] And it is.
[48:29] So let's try to do it all down.
[48:30] And I think we can certainly
all of this, I just want to
[48:34] thank you.
[48:38] Last night it took about 50 minutes.
[48:40] So sorry.
[48:43] So just getting into lastly
project schedule.
[48:46] What are the timelines here?
[48:48] So the facility plan,
we finished here in October.
[48:51] It's in draft form.
[48:53] So there's a little bit of work to do
with,
[48:55] to add some of those PCA forms
for the project priority
[48:58] list applications that will enable
that as you get on the funding list.
[49:02] I look at the thing, we're here today
at the council workshop talking about it,
[49:05] and then ultimately on the public
hearing will need to be, scheduled,
[49:10] as part of the facility
with that approval process,
[49:12] along with the council resolution
to adopt this plan
[49:16] and, you know, we'll talk with staff
about what is the best time to do that.
[49:20] But any time between essentially December
and February, you can do that for
[49:25] the facility plan needs to be submitted
to the PCA by March 6th of 2026.
[49:29] So we are ahead of the game
as far as the season goes.
[49:33] So the other piece is the funding.
[49:36] So, the the IEP submittal is due
June of next year
[49:40] and we will help with that
and get that submitted.
[49:42] And that puts you on the list
for competitive scoring and placement.
[49:46] And I ultimately get it
published in the fall of each year.
[49:49] So you'll see where you rank, likely
[49:52] in October or November of 2026.
[49:56] And that helps you kind of start
[49:59] the decision making process
and some of these other things. So,
[50:03] and then these
[50:04] requests
are typically odd number of years.
[50:07] I say typically
because that what's used to be normal
[50:10] and I don't know that there's anything
normal anymore, a bonding bill was passed
[50:15] earlier this year and a number of years,
and it's only an even number of years.
[50:18] But, you know, we are on top of those,
regular requests.
[50:23] You know, if there's some new exhibit next
year, you know, we will help with that.
[50:27] But formally,
it would be a number of years.
[50:29] So as early as ‘27,
and then, like Brian said,
[50:35] there's no benefit in waiting.
[50:36] It's a lose. Lose to wait.
[50:38] You're prolonging, the construction rate,
which has only go up
[50:43] and and you're not actively positioning
yourself,
[50:46] to be in the driver's seat for some of
some of the funding opportunities.
[50:50] So there's no benefit in waiting
to, begin design.
[50:54] You know, you can get going on this
on a little seminary, desires next year.
[50:58] And then position yourself to get plans
[51:01] submitted in, in the final design
later on.
[51:03] So, you know, the message is don't wait,
because there is no benefit to doing that.
[51:08] And then lastly, construction,
you know, once you are, once you convert,
[51:13] when you receive all that funding
that you need to make it affordable.
[51:16] You're talking about probably a three year
construction
[51:19] project out in a wastewater
plant by itself.
[51:22] So best case scenario, you know,
you get on those funding lists next fall,
[51:27] you make a request potentially in 27,
[51:32] you work on design elements
over the next two years,
[51:35] you know, your positioning yourself for,
[51:37] construction project again
as early as 2028,
[51:40] with the completion of something
like 2031, you know, if there's delays in
[51:45] receiving that funding, which are typical,
can take years to secure the funding.
[51:49] You know, that's
where we're showing a little more, or,
[51:52] you know, a wider range
for that construction phase,
[51:54] because you're not going to proceed
with the project until, you know,
[51:59] you have the funding.
[52:00] We probably then the funding.
[52:02] So key goals is be proactive
in the position in funding opportunities,
[52:06] the years, implement these projects
in a manner that implements
[52:10] it immediately and to me is very
critical in this process. So
[52:17] the ahead
[52:19] I want immediate questions. There we go.
[52:21] How much design is going to cost to design
[52:24] and approximate.
[52:28] Great question.
[52:29] I don't know, I we're not that far,
I guess, you know,
[52:31] part of that we'll,
we'll put together a proposal,
[52:34] and work with staff on that to identify
what that scope in a few years.
[52:38] You know, if you go back to.
[52:43] Soft costs so that 18.5%,
[52:46] you know, includes a lot of things,
includes all the preliminary engineering
[52:49] or geotechnical work and includes
the facility plan and includes
[52:52] engineering design, you know, so
when it's all said and done, and so cost
[52:58] like engineering or looking at an 18.5 or
[53:01] so, the 142 as of now is turnkey.
[53:06] 132 million is
[53:09] you hand is the keys
and everything is done.
[53:11] Yeah. That includes without inflation.
[53:13] That included a $2,025
with a 20% contingency.
[53:17] So thank you. Yep.
[53:20] Thank you Joe I've got two different time
things that I'm curious about.
[53:24] So, when you were talking about
[53:28] it's standard to have delays
and so on and so forth.
[53:31] I heard
you also talk a lot about 20 years,
[53:35] and then I heard that, you know, the
[53:38] the plan was built in the 60s.
[53:41] And, you know, whenever I've gone
through there, it's like a horror film.
[53:44] Know how y'all do it?
[53:46] So I'm curious, is there
[53:50] is there wiggle room in
what we're doing right now
[53:52] for those potential delays that are that
may or may or may not happen?
[53:58] I mean, help, help me understand that
[54:00] it's you're still functional,
you're still working.
[54:03] Right. And it needs to be done.
[54:04] And there is no kicking
the can down the road.
[54:06] Understand all of that.
[54:08] And if there are
I mean, talk me about that.
[54:12] You just said the word delay kind
of a lot of flags went off in my head.
[54:16] Yeah, I mean that that's a risk, right?
[54:18] I mean the delays
you can't really help, right?
[54:22] I mean, you're waiting around
to position yourself for the funding and
[54:25] strike when you have is right.
[54:27] I think if you take a years
to accomplish that and
[54:29] and all those years,
you still have a plan around,
[54:31] you still have an old plan at 65 years old
that hasn't been,
[54:35] you know,
touched to a major degree in 20 years
[54:38] where things break down
and you have to fix it.
[54:40] It's not on a column.
[54:41] It feels like every project I do
[54:43] these days, you know,
by the time you are ready to do it,
[54:46] one major piece is a plan breaks down
and they had to do an emergency.
[54:49] Your parents spend a lot of money.
[54:51] That happens all the time because that's
the nature of what you're dealing with.
[54:54] The older the show must go
on, must treat wastewater.
[54:58] So there may be unexpected expenses
[55:01] where Kelsey has to stand up here
in a future meeting and say,
[55:04] hey, we got to repair this
because it broke down.
[55:06] There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.
[55:09] That will likely happen.
[55:11] What that is, I don't know.
[55:13] I mean, I just mentioned,
you know, a couple months ago,
[55:17] 2 or 3 months ago,
where the clear trickling filter cover
[55:20] that's been identified
as something that needs to go,
[55:24] a major chunk of concrete
[55:25] fell off the side of the cover,
you know, navigating emergency repairs.
[55:29] That entire contractor to do it.
And it wasn't cheap.
[55:31] You know,
those things are going to happen.
[55:33] Okay.
[55:34] The other, the other item that
I'm curious about is that we just got out.
[55:39] I was inside, this last week, and
[55:43] I'm curious about,
like, the, the population, for example,
[55:47] you know, you talk about developable,
developable land
[55:51] and if we were to, let's just say
all of that land got out, developed
[55:56] and we did increase the population
by that amount.
[55:59] And there were other conversations
that happened, like, for example,
[56:02] doing infill projects
and increasing our density.
[56:06] And we rezone to we've done
a bunch of different things.
[56:08] Let's say, for example,
our population does spike
[56:12] because we are able to do this unit.
[56:16] So how does that
[56:18] how does that affect our plant.
[56:23] Does it do you understand what I'm asking.
[56:25] Yeah. Currently the existing plant.
[56:28] Yeah. Did I hear the weeds a little bit.
[56:30] But the there's a wide range of flows
that a plant is has to treat for.
[56:34] It's kind of the flow coming in
[56:35] in the middle of the night
in the middle of the winter,
[56:37] which is a lot
less of the flow in the middle of summer
[56:40] when we get to the kind of
I and I and, and flooding events going on.
[56:42] So you have to push a lot of flow
or a little flow through that plan.
[56:46] Right now, on average,
the flow of that land is roughly 50%.
[56:50] Its capacity, but it can pick up to 100%
during certain times.
[56:54] Turning where I was going on that.
[57:00] Go with the residential.
[57:01] I mean,
the new alternative has enough capacity
[57:06] built in for managing it
because it's one of the smaller options.
[57:10] We have the ability to even expand
it further.
[57:13] Okay. Yeah.
[57:15] This specific alternative,
you know, and design, we reevaluate
[57:19] all these flows and the labor hours to,
to get the latest and greatest deal.
[57:23] Right.
[57:23] You know, this is data through 2024
that we looked at some of the changes
[57:27] in the next two years.
[57:28] That will be the data
[57:29] that we design and around, along
with projecting off 20 years from now.
[57:33] But the intent is to size that land.
[57:35] You know, at least right now, to handle
that is 20 years and needs based on what,
[57:40] you know, if there's something
super unexpected, that happens and,
[57:45] you know, you know, there's room
in, in this alternative
[57:47] specifically to expand the process,
add more cells to accommodate,
[57:51] and the discussion really is okay
to build that sort of now,
[57:54] in anticipation of that happening,
[57:56] build the structure
[57:57] and then not populate those cells
with all the media
[57:59] and the things that go in there
that cost money.
[58:02] Or do you wait and build what you need now
and then build more structures later
[58:07] that that's really the discussion
about expansion with this alternative.
[58:11] And I think you've covered that with us.
[58:12] And is there a major
[58:15] the cost difference for
[58:17] the the price that, that
[58:18] we've been talking about is without that
expansion, is that correct,
[58:22] or is that with the expansion
that so what we assumed actually,
[58:28] getting into the weeds a little bit too,
but it's a ten by five cell system.
[58:33] We worked with vendors that,
provide this equipment and to size
[58:37] that for the flow is not rejection
is what we showed on on that site plan.
[58:41] And what we had built into
some of the costs are building
[58:44] additional cells on that
so you could accommodate growth.
[58:47] So, you know,
it makes you could do an analysis
[58:51] for the building, make a lot of sense
to probably build a structure now
[58:55] and then, just not spend the money
to populate that structure than wait
[58:59] till you have that growth
to add that later.
[59:01] If it's kind of a design level discussion
where we'll have to kind of dig
[59:05] in the weeds on that, to figure out
what are the best solutions.
[59:08] But, there's ways, to address it.
[59:12] Thank you. Yep.
[59:14] One quick question.
[59:16] So 142 million.
[59:19] And when I look at your funding
opportunities, there's 22
[59:22] million in grants.
[59:24] And that's it
[59:26] pretty much. Right.
[59:28] Just I just want to understand.
[59:29] So then we have to,
[59:33] we going to be taking out a loan
[59:34] for 120 million for this, give or take.
[59:38] That would be the the difference.
[59:40] The other thing would be the,
special appropriations bond requests,
[59:44] where you could request additional funding
help the argument
[59:49] and being that you have 22 million
that you would be eligible
[59:52] for based on the programs that exist
today, it's just a matter of position.
[59:57] You for them
if you are eligible for that money.
[1:00:01] If it doesn't,
[1:00:03] even with the 22 million, meet
your affordability needs.
[1:00:06] If that number is not close to $76
a month, that's 90,
[1:00:11] you would still have excess funds.
[1:00:14] Or I think you have a pretty good argument
to request that from the state.
[1:00:19] Through, a bond was to be approved,
you have to put out a very good
[1:00:24] narrative of why you deserve that money
and not someone else.
[1:00:28] But that's the other tools usually,
that communities will use,
[1:00:32] to get finance
and get additional funding from.
[1:00:37] Thank you.
[1:00:38] Okay, so that's a pretty good segue
into your homework.
[1:00:41] Okay.
[1:00:43] That is
[1:00:43] when we talk about funding
and in, in as council person
[1:00:48] had mentioned,
there's a pretty significant gap there.
[1:00:52] And when we start talking about,
special appropriations
[1:00:55] from the state or federal level
or whatever those are,
[1:00:58] those conversations go a lot farther
when you folks
[1:01:00] are having those with our elected leaders,
with our legislative leaders,
[1:01:04] they do from us.
[1:01:09] But we would certainly give you
all the information to speak.
[1:01:12] Okay. Unless you want to go.
[1:01:13] One of the ways Kelsey can teach you all
about loading and,
[1:01:18] some issues, whatever.
[1:01:22] Any other questions for right now
running total best case
[1:01:25] is, is our rates dropped from $20 a month
[1:01:28] or between a billion variable cost
[1:01:33] to get to our affordability.
[1:01:34] I think the best case is you end up
paying around your current affordability.
[1:01:38] You know, the other thing with that
[1:01:39] is that it involves two year
and it goes up year over year,
[1:01:42] and the data that they use, changes
each year.
[1:01:47] So as your mind goes up,
that $76 is going up each year too.
[1:01:50] So by the time you're ready to lock that,
you know, financing agreement
[1:01:54] in, you might be playing
with those different numbers.
[1:01:57] So another time,
a little time is of the essence.
[1:02:01] Well, again, and we appreciate you coming.
[1:02:03] I know
we first started talking about this.
[1:02:05] I heard about it when I served on
the council three years ago.
[1:02:07] So now we're kind of
getting to that next up.
[1:02:09] But it sounds like
we've got some more stuff,
[1:02:11] but I think it's good, obviously
[1:02:12] to keep it at the forefront
and get more specifics now.
[1:02:15] And we appreciate you coming up
and answering questions.
[1:02:18] And it looks like we have some work to do.
[1:02:20] So thanks for having us. Appreciate it.
[1:02:23] Yeah. Thank you.
[1:02:25] Do people need a break
you know anybody okay.
[1:02:28] Well we're going to take a five minute
break and now probably go into a ten
[1:02:31] minute break.
[1:02:32] But let's be back at 608.
[1:02:42] All right.
[1:02:42] Again
we will go to to be now our proposed 2026
[1:02:45] levy and budget of our workshop
this evening.
[1:02:49] Yeah. Thanks. Good to see everybody again.
[1:02:52] I don't
think this meeting will have a shock.
[1:02:54] That was the last meeting.
Yeah, thankfully.
[1:02:57] But we're going to dictate
from where we were basically a week ago.
[1:03:01] We're going to talk about a few positions
and keep grinding at that, property tax
[1:03:06] levy to get it from 4.99 down to something
more palatable for the city council.
[1:03:10] We'll talk about, so changes that.
[1:03:14] We'd like the city council
to consider some other information.
[1:03:17] We like to provide you because questions
that have arisen about it
[1:03:20] and then briefly,
just a few administrative changes
[1:03:23] we made in wrapping up
[1:03:24] with where we are at with the levy
at the conclusion of this meeting.
[1:03:28] But with that, I'm going to turn it
over to Tony for the PowerPoint.
[1:03:32] All right.
[1:03:33] So kind of starting off where we left,
[1:03:36] last last Monday evening, we got through
[1:03:40] quite a few of these positions
and several other requests.
[1:03:43] We got kind of pressed
for time at the end.
[1:03:45] So what we're offering doing
is just circling back for just a minute
[1:03:50] at the start of this meeting to cover
[1:03:54] two of our current vacant positions.
[1:03:57] So we made some determinations
last Monday.
[1:04:00] Those items highlighted in green are items
that council and the mayor has
[1:04:05] determined are worthwhile
to keep in the existing numbers.
[1:04:09] And then those couple of red highlighted
items were items that were
[1:04:13] the consensus was
we would take out of the existing numbers.
[1:04:18] Those couple of yellow highlighted
items are the ones
[1:04:22] we're just going to quickly circle back
to just anymore
[1:04:26] discussion analysis, kind of kind of ran
out of time last Monday night.
[1:04:30] So, with that,
we'll go to the first position.
[1:04:37] And this is the
[1:04:38] engineering field, tech
one, the position that we
[1:04:42] started off on.
[1:04:43] I'll turn it over to engineering Director
Regnier here.
[1:04:46] Yeah.
[1:04:47] So a lot of folks out there,
[1:04:50] on the screen,
but this is a vacant position.
[1:04:53] We typically, had our field
[1:04:57] techs full, and then it's been
a little bit harder the last few years.
[1:05:01] With retirements,
there's a bunch of retirements there.
[1:05:04] Five, ten years in the last five,
ten years.
[1:05:08] And as part of that, we just, in the last
[1:05:11] five years went from a
7 to 6 staff member department.
[1:05:15] So we lost one of our cat
just due to organizational changes.
[1:05:20] Within the last few years.
[1:05:23] And that was a technician position.
[1:05:26] So we're down to three currently.
[1:05:27] One of them is vacant.
[1:05:29] That structure
we have with our two field techs does
[1:05:33] I mean, we've been able to make it work
and made it work this year.
[1:05:36] This year was a somewhat of a down year.
[1:05:39] And the fact
[1:05:40] that we didn't have a reconstruct project,
which we typically do every year.
[1:05:44] So normally
when we have our normal slate of projects,
[1:05:48] we utilize all of our field techs.
[1:05:50] And even this year,
with just two field techs
[1:05:53] and part of this year
we're running with just one.
[1:05:56] Just before
we could fill the second vacant one.
[1:06:00] We still have points
where we really could
[1:06:04] use more field techs,
but we obviously only have the two.
[1:06:08] So whether it's myself, Ryan,
or Jared, our project manager,
[1:06:13] our going out on the field
and kind of helping plug in that work. So
[1:06:18] without them, we're making it work.
[1:06:19] But it's
[1:06:21] kind of taking away from other work
or things like even contractors
[1:06:24] coming in to do, sidewalk replacements
as part of utility projects.
[1:06:29] Their contractors generally know what
they're doing, but sometimes they don't.
[1:06:33] And if we're not out there to watch them,
we get ramps that aren't Ada compliant
[1:06:36] and then we're redoing work
or they're redoing work.
[1:06:40] And we don't do that
when we have the staff
[1:06:43] that are around to go out
and actually verify stuff as needed.
[1:06:47] So things like that.
[1:06:50] But then in general,
what does this person do?
[1:06:52] Why do we have currently two
why we usually have three or
[1:06:56] we used to have four.
[1:06:57] It's because during the summer months
there is all sorts of projects
[1:07:00] between our overlays,
our reconstruction projects,
[1:07:03] residents redoing their driveways
or utilities.
[1:07:07] Service lines of utility companies
[1:07:11] all over, just down the road here.
[1:07:13] For example, on fifth Street, Excel
is doing their big replacement project,
[1:07:17] and we we're involved in all those type
of projects and inspections and design
[1:07:22] on the reconstructs and overlays
in our alley, reconstruct projects.
[1:07:27] And generally we frequently have or
[1:07:30] bigger non reoccurring projects
[1:07:33] like the Trail project or sidewalk project
next year things like that.
[1:07:38] So we're pretty busy during
the summer months and the winter months.
[1:07:42] It's slightly slows down
when you do a lot of our data processing
[1:07:45] during that time, and that is the best
time to do the design.
[1:07:49] That's where this position is, envisioned
to help fulfill those needs as well,
[1:07:54] because we'd like to add someone
that has the computer experience
[1:07:57] and the field capabilities
so that we can keep them fully
[1:08:02] utilized during the slower times
in the winter on the design.
[1:08:05] And then when we need them, they can
[1:08:08] grab their boots and go out in the field.
[1:08:10] All this comes at a cost.
[1:08:13] And why do we do it?
[1:08:14] Because we can save a bunch of costs
and get a lot better service.
[1:08:18] If we don't do it,
we pay consultants to do all that work.
[1:08:23] Design, inspection,
whatever happens to be.
[1:08:27] And that comes at paying for their profit
because they're a for profit business.
[1:08:32] You're paying for their drive time.
[1:08:33] And typically
[1:08:35] any time someone comes to town, you
probably figure in two hours of that day
[1:08:39] just and drive time
all park and their prep time and whatnot.
[1:08:43] And they're just not intimately plugged
in with the city
[1:08:47] like we are and able to respond
and kind of know
[1:08:50] what they're talking about
relatively quickly, if not immediately.
[1:08:55] Whereas consultants
or someone that you hire,
[1:08:57] you're going
to have to get them up to speed.
[1:08:59] They're going to have
to kind of learn about it.
[1:09:01] And they're not here unless they make
a special trip to deal with it. So
[1:09:06] that's all what we say.
[1:09:07] If we do that, all that work in-house,
we're not paying consultants
[1:09:10] and their profit and all that stuff.
[1:09:14] I can give some of the examples.
[1:09:15] I think maybe we listed them up there.
[1:09:17] Oh, we don't listed up there.
[1:09:19] But, for example, our again,
our reconstruction projects,
[1:09:23] we've typically been able
to do those in-house.
[1:09:25] But we're kind of getting more
and more pinched and to be honest as well,
[1:09:30] our that work is being done
primarily by Ryan,
[1:09:34] who started as the CAD technician
25 years ago.
[1:09:39] And has moved up and we've never
really gotten that position backfilled.
[1:09:43] So he doesn't stay up on the ball
with all that he's not doing this day
[1:09:46] in and day out.
[1:09:47] So he's not as efficient as someone that
we would like to have in that position.
[1:09:50] He's great and does a good job, but
[1:09:53] it's not
really part of his, normal duties.
[1:09:57] He just keeps doing it because we need to.
[1:10:00] So all those things would be alleviated
[1:10:04] with filling our position here.
[1:10:08] Questions for Zach and.
[1:10:13] I guess I just had one
[1:10:14] as far as do we have any data or numbers
on how much reviews, consultants or,
[1:10:20] you know, outside
work to cover those responsibilities?
[1:10:24] I don't have, those numbers.
[1:10:28] And, I mean, you can generally figure
[1:10:32] like going back to the presentation
that we just saw.
[1:10:35] Obviously different project,
different scale.
[1:10:37] We're talking about.
[1:10:37] But those soft costs, you know,
they added 18.5%.
[1:10:41] That's kind of all the design
and inspection are two big parts of that.
[1:10:46] And some other stuff.
[1:10:48] But that's the type of thing where
[1:10:50] our sidewalk project for next year.
[1:10:54] We're paying consultant to do that.
[1:10:55] And there's some aspects where we maybe
need to have a consultant do it anyway,
[1:10:58] because there's some traffic analysis
at the Tyler Road intersection that are
[1:11:02] a little bit higher level and specialized.
[1:11:04] But the point being, we possibly
could do work like that in-house
[1:11:08] and maybe would have saved 100 grand,
give or take, on that project
[1:11:12] or same with our street
reconstruct projects.
[1:11:17] We'd be looking at possibly
even more than that.
[1:11:21] Maybe, 100, 200,000 when we're looking
at designing that stuff in-house versus
[1:11:28] if we can't keep up with that anymore
and have to hire it out.
[1:11:31] It's typically quite expensive
to hire that.
[1:11:35] And the inspection side is about equal
[1:11:40] five to or like
usually 6 to 10% of a project cost.
[1:11:46] Do we have,
[1:11:47] do we have a listed in the budget,
any amount for
[1:11:51] outside services for this type of thing?
[1:11:56] A lot of times these are projects.
[1:11:59] These are usually related to a project.
[1:12:02] So they become part of the project costs.
[1:12:05] So it's in the CIP is where
a lot of these costs will be found.
[1:12:10] Okay.
[1:12:12] Is that why Marshall.
[1:12:13] Like when you look at the levy impact
with how it's presented here, like it's
[1:12:17] 33,000, but really cost hundred and 29,
that that has a lot to do with.
[1:12:24] We discussed this
briefly last Monday too, but
[1:12:27] we wanted to be able to try to give you
some data points for reference.
[1:12:31] And what that relates to is
if the fund, the the engineering fund,
[1:12:37] for example, does it receive a transfer
from the general fund?
[1:12:41] Any transfer from the general fund can,
[1:12:43] for the most part,
assume to be from property taxes,
[1:12:46] and they do receive a transfer
from the general fund for operating costs.
[1:12:50] And every year
they receive 400,000 for, repaving.
[1:12:55] They have a $400,000
repaving program every year.
[1:12:59] So we looked at how
[1:13:00] much revenue does,
the fund generate by itself
[1:13:04] and what proportion of that
is actually come from the general fund.
[1:13:08] And we'd simply multiply
that by the cost of the position
[1:13:12] so we could say, you know,
this is the same exact science.
[1:13:16] No, but about 30
[1:13:19] is that number 33,000,
33,000 comes from property tax support.
[1:13:24] So it's a percentage of total income
represented by general fund.
[1:13:28] So we came up with a number.
[1:13:32] Well maybe to stick with what we did
last Monday.
[1:13:34] Do we are we okay.
[1:13:35] Maybe going down the line real quick
and giving any comments on
[1:13:38] what we think about this position
or what would you like to do?
[1:13:42] Chris I think that's a great process,
but I'm just kind of trying
[1:13:46] to listen to these, descriptions
and add a little bit of context
[1:13:49] that might makes more sense.
[1:13:50] So from my experience
in the last community I was in, we so
[1:13:55] we did typically 1.2 to 1.5
million and street projects per year.
[1:14:00] All of it was contracted out.
[1:14:02] We had a consulting city engineer
and then the engineering firm, typically
[1:14:06] that firm did all the design
and construction inspection.
[1:14:11] We were
[1:14:12] trying though, and earlier
to try to save some funds,
[1:14:16] on the construction inspection component,
could we hire a city employee,
[1:14:20] full time city employee, and alleviate
some of the construction
[1:14:23] inspection costs,
which generally would have been around?
[1:14:26] If you're talking about that 1.2
million, that's about
[1:14:29] 70,000 of the project
was often construction inspection.
[1:14:34] So we utilize an employee.
[1:14:36] That would be
[1:14:37] that that's a large percentage of the wage
for construction inspection.
[1:14:41] And then what could we utilize them
for during the remainder of the year?
[1:14:45] We never got to that finish line.
[1:14:46] They continued to pay for that
construction inspection component.
[1:14:51] But here in Red Wing, the uniqueness
is that that position is also, as Zach
[1:14:57] described, is being used for the CAD work
and the design work.
[1:15:01] And so there's I mean, it doesn't
[1:15:03] quite correlate because it depends
on the projects that we're doing,
[1:15:07] but you could say it
potentially saves $150,000 a year
[1:15:11] if those costs aren't contracted out.
[1:15:15] So it's really hard to assume
[1:15:18] because it changes year by year by year,
but it's a definite cost savings
[1:15:24] on your overall budget if you utilize it
[1:15:26] to do what you would
otherwise be contracting for.
[1:15:31] I'm not showing..oh.
[1:15:33] Go ahead Don.
[1:15:33] Say, how many years is this position
been open?
[1:15:39] That's a little bit hard.
[1:15:40] So we had two a year ago,
[1:15:42] and then one of those, went to Lake City
and then we hired a back end.
[1:15:46] So we've been able to fill in,
but we've just lost a person here.
[1:15:50] There.
[1:15:51] I don't know.
[1:15:54] And some of you recall just because we're
in the building there when that was left.
[1:15:58] But there was a longstanding,
up until the last 5 to 10 year timeframe
[1:16:03] where the for field techs were like 20
to 30 year, ten year employees.
[1:16:09] And then once they left it
[1:16:11] been filling those
[1:16:12] and 1 or 2 has come and gone are two
that we have or a couple that we have
[1:16:18] have been here now for several years and,
[1:16:21] have had some longevity with us.
[1:16:26] And my question was just,
[1:16:28] I mean, are there specific projects
for 2026 that we really do feel
[1:16:32] and I know, again, that we would use
this type of work that we know for
[1:16:35] sure is going to be needed, and
we would have a cost savings right away.
[1:16:39] Yeah.
[1:16:40] So, I mean, anticipating the construction
phase of the sidewalk
[1:16:45] project or service drive project that will
be coming back here in a little bit.
[1:16:51] So right there we would use inspections.
[1:16:53] We anticipate the 2026 Street
reconstruction project,
[1:16:58] which we're trying to get through design
right now.
[1:17:00] Again, we could be a little bit
more efficient and have that process.
[1:17:06] Would we be helping there,
helping in the inspection side of that,
[1:17:10] finishing up inspections
on our trail project and our normal list?
[1:17:14] The smaller things
that don't add up to the big dollars
[1:17:17] are when we get the calls every week
of someone replacing their driveway
[1:17:21] or building a new garage,
and we're the ones that go out and
[1:17:25] provide recommendations, or
[1:17:27] at least enforce our codes
and make sure everything is done right.
[1:17:30] So they're not tearing it all and redoing
it and all the little things that we do.
[1:17:36] Laying out, striping up on Memorial Park,
[1:17:38] to help the public work staff and,
[1:17:41] and some of the little stuff too,
that we don't even have a dollar amount
[1:17:45] for it, do respond
to quite a few community issues.
[1:17:50] Yeah.
[1:17:52] Ron, do you mind if I have
you go on that side to start with?
[1:17:56] Any thoughts you have?
[1:17:59] Yeah.
[1:18:00] I think I'm a no on this.
[1:18:02] I think, you know, when you're
looking at different projects and things
[1:18:05] like that, you know, the demand is there
when that project's there.
[1:18:08] If the project's not there,
there's not necessarily a demand.
[1:18:11] And you may or may not be
[1:18:13] using that person's time
[1:18:16] efficiently, effectively.
[1:18:21] Don, you want to go next?
[1:18:24] Defer.
[1:18:27] I'm going to probably be very hesitant
also on this and say no.
[1:18:30] At this point,
[1:18:30] I would feel much more comfortable
if I had like the specific numbers of
[1:18:35] of what we're looking at
in front of me, of like me,
[1:18:38] you know, so I'd encourage you,
like for this coming year,
[1:18:41] if you can keep track again
of like how we can use that.
[1:18:44] Like I think it could justify me
supporting it for 2027.
[1:18:48] But at this point I'd say no.
[1:18:53] I mean, yes, I do think just maybe not
[1:18:56] the hard numbers you're looking for, but,
we have a big project coming up.
[1:19:01] We have the sidewalk project coming up.
[1:19:04] We still have the,
[1:19:06] path project that's not completed to,
[1:19:10] I support this.
[1:19:12] When I,
[1:19:14] walked through the department,
it was, intact, with Zach
[1:19:18] and just having two people there
doing this work, it's burdensome.
[1:19:23] And so I support this.
[1:19:29] I'm going to ask a question
[1:19:31] about this position.
[1:19:33] Is it going to affect
getting the street side,
[1:19:37] the sidewalk down on our service
drive and,
[1:19:41] other projects we have this next year?
[1:19:44] I guess a
[1:19:47] ultimately everything will get done.
[1:19:50] It's just whether the cup, whether we pay
extra for consultants or not.
[1:19:56] So you would use consultancies to get it
done.
[1:20:00] You see, it kind of get pushed back
via, for example, Bolton
[1:20:04] Menk, the firm that did this study
is doing the North Service drive sidewalk.
[1:20:08] So if we need assistance
[1:20:11] they would
[1:20:11] because they did the design
they would provide a
[1:20:14] inspections if we need any.
[1:20:17] We've made yes easier.
[1:20:18] If it would be like well
it's going to make it way more difficult.
[1:20:21] But I still support the project,
the position because of the need
[1:20:26] within the department
and knowing the cost of consultants.
[1:20:31] Substantially
more than having your own in-house.
[1:20:34] It's something like this.
[1:20:39] In keeping with what I heard
[1:20:42] Beth say
and what I heard Kim say, I would.
[1:20:44] I also support the project.
[1:20:46] And when I'm thinking about
[1:20:49] why specifically,
in addition to the big projects,
[1:20:53] the day to day work, when I see lead
CAD efforts and assist with field work,
[1:20:58] just having another person there
to help in, feel and be creative and help
[1:21:02] with like that extra design piece
that you have
[1:21:07] and consulting fees.
[1:21:09] They're so blasted expensive.
[1:21:11] So I do support this position.
[1:21:14] Will we utilize
[1:21:15] any outside consultants
if this position is filled?
[1:21:20] Yeah.
[1:21:20] So we always get
every depending on the project.
[1:21:24] I mean there
always are going to be projects
[1:21:26] that require outside consultants
because some things have specialty things.
[1:21:30] Most of our projects
we're able to do in-house.
[1:21:32] But everyone smile.
[1:21:33] If we get into a big intersection,
we may need a traffic engineer
[1:21:37] because they do that
and we want to make sure
[1:21:40] our intersection is safe or whatever
the case is.
[1:21:44] That's maybe one of the bigger ones,
but not typically.
[1:21:47] Typically,
we do stuff in-house and we don't know
[1:21:51] how much we spent on consultants
that this position would handle.
[1:21:55] Correct.
[1:21:56] And not specifically tallied up. No.
[1:22:02] Time.
[1:22:03] Do you have any other comments
that you would like to?
[1:22:05] Okay.
[1:22:06] Well, I mean, I was I was a know on Monday
night on this particular, position.
[1:22:12] I mean, I'm under the impression unless
I'm thinking of a different position.
[1:22:16] Even back when, Jay was here, we had,
we had a position.
[1:22:21] Is it the same one?
[1:22:24] Just the same type of position?
[1:22:27] Yes. So we couldn't fill.
[1:22:30] I mean, we've
[1:22:31] since the day I've been on this council
haven't been able to fill that position.
[1:22:34] So what are the odds that might have been
the one that was eliminated when we went,
[1:22:39] when they went from 4 to 3
just in the last five years,
[1:22:42] one staff position was eliminated
from the org chart.
[1:22:45] I'm assuming your time with that.
[1:22:47] I wasn't here during that.
[1:22:48] So I think it's it was more technical,
like engineering or engineering
[1:22:52] directly related engineering.
[1:22:54] Engineering assistant one of those two.
[1:22:56] Oh yeah.
[1:22:57] Might even been either assistant city
engineer position correctly.
[1:23:01] That's correct.
[1:23:02] I'm thinking it.
[1:23:03] If so. Correct. Okay.
[1:23:06] In that case, I support it.
[1:23:10] Any other questions
or comments on that position?
[1:23:12] Then I think we'll move on to
[1:23:16] CIP manager then discussion
[1:23:18] next FTE position.
[1:23:22] Yeah.
[1:23:23] So I'll try to be brief for my remarks
[1:23:25] so we can get straight to questions
or comments and anything else.
[1:23:28] Or to make sure we clarify a few things.
[1:23:33] This, this reclassification
that we're proposing,
[1:23:37] it results
from a vacancy of the current board chart.
[1:23:40] It is not a request for a new position.
[1:23:44] I just wanted to clarify
that off the bat.
[1:23:47] Another point.
[1:23:50] I just wanted to kind of clarify
and give a little explanation is,
[1:23:55] the recent new hire that just started,
a couple of weeks ago.
[1:24:01] And he came back for his second
pay period.
[1:24:04] So, you know, good sign.
[1:24:07] So that position
[1:24:10] was also also resulted
[1:24:13] from filling a vacancy that had existed
that was a separate position.
[1:24:17] It was filling a vacant position that had
sat vacant for, a little over a year.
[1:24:27] In a way,
[1:24:27] that position is a little unrelated
to this, only because that position
[1:24:32] is designed to assist
with some of those annual
[1:24:36] large lists, like the audit process,
the budget process,
[1:24:41] and then internal and external
[1:24:44] financial reporting.
[1:24:49] As well as provide some,
[1:24:53] backup capabilities in our important
functions, you know, being able
[1:24:57] to train and provide and have a backup
for a payroll function or
[1:25:03] provide and train to have a backup
for utility billing function.
[1:25:08] So that position
with the person who we were able to
[1:25:12] hire is kind of designed
for a little bit different.
[1:25:17] So it's not completely unrelated to this,
because what we are talking about
[1:25:20] overall is overall staffing capacity.
[1:25:24] But I just wanted to point that out.
[1:25:28] What we're proposing
[1:25:30] is in line with exactly what council said
[1:25:35] they valued at the last annual workshop,
which was
[1:25:40] when a vacancy comes due.
[1:25:44] Do a little thoughtful analysis
[1:25:46] on what your needs are.
[1:25:50] And that's what we're doing here.
[1:25:51] We recognize that it may be difficult
to find a CIP manager
[1:25:56] as fit the role
as it previously was filled,
[1:25:59] and in the exact function
that it previously provided.
[1:26:03] However,
[1:26:05] that resource still provides
[1:26:08] function and tremendous value to the city.
[1:26:11] And so what we're proposing is offering
and a lower level accountant position
[1:26:16] to fill and be able to continue to assist
[1:26:19] the other departments citywide.
[1:26:23] In doing things like capital improvement,
[1:26:27] project analysis, helping manage grants.
[1:26:31] Grants aren't always
just something that we go out
[1:26:34] and seek the funding and secure it.
[1:26:37] There's a lot of work on the back
end to a report
[1:26:41] to verify,
managing grants and their compliance.
[1:26:47] And I had some.
[1:26:49] And just going from what you heard before
this meeting to that multiyear process
[1:26:54] to secure bond funds,
that's a really heavy lift,
[1:26:58] even for a consultant,
because that generally entails meeting
[1:27:01] with every single member of the House
and Senate Capital Investment Committee.
[1:27:06] That means going through there
[1:27:08] to try to get on their calendar
when it works for them.
[1:27:11] Send invites, a call.
[1:27:14] Those invites out to you folks to come,
to come up to the Capitol with us to have
[1:27:20] those pressing, needed conversations,
like trying to secure those grant funds
[1:27:24] for these bigger capital projects
[1:27:26] and the multiyear, project time frame.
[1:27:30] Is it it's not just going to affect
public works.
[1:27:33] Part of it is the whole financial planning
and and work around
[1:27:37] that and trying to secure that funding,
which takes quite a bit of effort.
[1:27:41] We are very familiar with multiyear,
wait times to secure funding,
[1:27:45] whether that be for the surge link
road rail grade separation project
[1:27:51] for, River
Renaissance things of those nature.
[1:27:54] It takes a lot of concerted time, energy
and effort to see those through.
[1:27:59] But at the end of the day, they've been
extremely huge dividends to the community.
[1:28:07] Yeah.
[1:28:07] And then lastly,
[1:28:12] Lastly, I just want to also mention or
offer up what this position will provide.
[1:28:17] And the department is,
it's the opportunity
[1:28:23] and the resource to be able to tackle some
[1:28:26] much needed improvements.
[1:28:31] As you all are aware,
[1:28:32] we had to make a payment processing
[1:28:36] or what would you call it,
a platform transition.
[1:28:40] We were on PSN,
we are now on express bill pay.
[1:28:44] I mean, projects like that.
[1:28:46] That was a vital project
that was very important to our city staff,
[1:28:50] our cashiers, to remain efficient
and being able
[1:28:54] to account for transactions.
[1:28:58] You know, projects like that
where we're transitioning
[1:29:01] or making improvements for efficiency,
[1:29:04] those are a heavy lift,
and those are often going to be
[1:29:07] things that originate
and are managed through finance,
[1:29:11] and places a burden on the existing
finance staff.
[1:29:14] So, being able to have a resource
available to us to be able
[1:29:20] to tackle some of those efficiency
improvements that are on the horizon,
[1:29:25] that remains important to us. So,
[1:29:30] with that,
I hope that table is pretty clear.
[1:29:34] And what we're trying to accomplish.
[1:29:35] We took the, I guess really
[1:29:39] to sum it up,
you would have a couple of options.
[1:29:42] What staff is recommending
is the elimination of the CIP manager role
[1:29:48] and then replacing it with a lower level
accounting role
[1:29:52] and realizing some savings of reduced
over time from the existing budget.
[1:29:57] And the last plug I'll make
is really about something Tony
[1:29:59] and I talk about probably too frequently,
because we're not comfortable with it.
[1:30:03] And ultimately it's it's
the council's responsibility.
[1:30:07] It's really about the backup for mission
[1:30:10] critical, processes.
[1:30:13] And I think of those often as utility
billing and payroll
[1:30:17] and having capacity so that if something
happened to one of those people
[1:30:21] or God forbid,
[1:30:22] they just wanted to go to their own kids
wedding,
[1:30:23] but it happened
to be during the payroll week, that
[1:30:26] they have somebody else
within the department
[1:30:31] that can perform
those functions we lack right now
[1:30:34] adequate, cross-training,
[1:30:37] adequate duplication, adequate ability.
[1:30:40] If something were to happen,
one of our key people
[1:30:43] doing one of those processes, it's
something we're highly uncomfortable with.
[1:30:46] But like I said, at the end of the day,
that's a it's
[1:30:49] a council could live with that risk
or assume that risk.
[1:30:52] We defer that decision to folks.
[1:31:00] Any questions
from Marshall until mayor did,
[1:31:05] do we have cross-training
in our financial departments
[1:31:11] when the people how many people are
we've been able to do payroll?
[1:31:15] Sure.
[1:31:16] There's nobody that can back.
[1:31:17] We have nobody that backs up
payroll. Correct.
[1:31:20] That's why we've been short people
for a couple of years running.
[1:31:25] We just fill that's the account position.
[1:31:27] But as Tony was explaining,
that accountants position
[1:31:30] is almost fully consumed
between audit budget.
[1:31:32] It's a never ending process
goes on all year.
[1:31:35] Answer questions from department heads,
you know, help with the budget process.
[1:31:39] It's that's basically a full time job.
[1:31:41] What we're what we're this accountant
that we're talking about here
[1:31:44] instead of a CIP
manager is really that relief valve.
[1:31:48] It's to help accommodate succession
plan and ensure we have the capacity
[1:31:53] and the people to have the time
to actually learn that other system
[1:31:57] and understand it thoroughly.
[1:31:59] Right now, if we just had, for example,
our new accountant, his name is Bradley
[1:32:04] Johnson, he's going to do great,
but he's not going to have
[1:32:08] what his role will not, involve
being backup
[1:32:13] for either for some of these mission
critical, processing positions.
[1:32:19] He just simply he will not have the time.
[1:32:21] So we only have one person that can do
payroll.
[1:32:25] That's correct.
[1:32:25] What if they resign tomorrow?
[1:32:27] What do we do now? What?
[1:32:28] We are backup. Emergency plan
[1:32:32] is, this all goes back to succession
planning.
[1:32:34] That's why I wanted to mention it.
[1:32:37] Our backup
emergency plan is probably Tony.
[1:32:39] And I don't want you sitting at computer
me on the phone with our software vendor
[1:32:44] to help process
and get through the process
[1:32:48] and try to get the payroll out.
[1:32:50] Is this a is this a new process?
[1:32:53] I mean, did
we have someone else that could
[1:32:55] that was cross-trained
and they had left us?
[1:32:58] Correct.
[1:32:58] The former CIP manager,
[1:33:01] was actually cross-trained,
[1:33:05] and that person was only here
for about a year.
[1:33:07] Correct?
[1:33:09] Yeah. Give or take. Yeah. You're right.
[1:33:10] Who did that before?
[1:33:11] Who is the backup before?
[1:33:13] I'm just. I find it.
[1:33:15] It's concerning that we only have
one person that can do payroll.
[1:33:19] We have the same concern.
[1:33:25] I'm done.
[1:33:25] Any other questions for Tony? Sorry.
[1:33:28] Well, and just just to clarify that point,
[1:33:32] I don't think what we're proposing
necessarily would be to provide
[1:33:36] we're not asking above and beyond
to have like two payroll experts
[1:33:39] and be above and beyond.
[1:33:40] But to Marshall's point,
if we lost that payroll person,
[1:33:44] that critical payroll person,
it would pull likely myself and likely
[1:33:50] another resource away
from our other duties.
[1:33:54] And all those other duties are currently
[1:33:58] held to capacity more or less.
[1:34:01] Okay, so we have
I mean, we have the ability
[1:34:04] to adapt and prioritize
and triage these things,
[1:34:08] but we don't really have anyone
that can step in,
[1:34:12] just step in.
[1:34:12] Not not directly. No.
[1:34:14] All right.
[1:34:15] No, I mean, it would be a strain on in
our other areas, we'd be able to adapt.
[1:34:20] But you know, it would be it would be
a struggle in some of our other areas.
[1:34:25] Okay. Understood. Thank you.
[1:34:28] Vicki.
[1:34:28] Joe, for a couple of,
[1:34:31] clarifying questions then,
[1:34:34] if we're talking about restructuring
the position in the finance department
[1:34:38] and the CIP manager position going away,
and you were talking about setting up,
[1:34:43] the long range planning
for bringing money into the city
[1:34:48] and doing the meetings
and doing all of that.
[1:34:51] I'm assuming that
[1:34:53] piece of that job then is gone.
[1:34:56] You're talking about hiring an accountant
who isn't a specialist in networking
[1:35:02] and getting and long range
planning and grant
[1:35:04] writing and grant seeking,
all of that kind of stuff.
[1:35:08] Am I correct in that assumption?
[1:35:10] Let me clarify.
[1:35:11] So to some extent there's less of that.
[1:35:14] But that's just a function of the city
currently is focusing on a couple.
[1:35:19] One of the the major project is the one
we just heard about earlier tonight.
[1:35:23] We are not pursuing the number
[1:35:26] or level of priorities
that we have pursued in the past.
[1:35:30] So before we'd have any number
related to the River Renaissance
[1:35:34] Revitalization project, trails, riverfront
[1:35:37] and those aren't, deemed by this council
council's process.
[1:35:42] We're not pushing,
those who try to move those forward.
[1:35:45] So there's not the volume that helps.
[1:35:48] So there will be some capacity
in this position where they be an expert.
[1:35:52] Perhaps not to the extent that Ron
[1:35:56] was, but we have experience, too,
[1:35:59] or we're, you know, available
and would be happy to assist.
[1:36:03] We want to make sure
whoever this person is,
[1:36:05] they're successful in the organization
as a whole is successful.
[1:36:08] So I look at as how much volume
what's the volume?
[1:36:11] And because the volume has been
turned down a little bit, we don't do
[1:36:15] we need somebody 100% of the time to focus
[1:36:18] like rounded on those specific projects?
[1:36:22] Perhaps not.
[1:36:23] That was our thought process
when we were discussing this and,
[1:36:26] looking at how we could reorganize
some of the department to, to make sure
[1:36:30] that kind of all of the current
needs were met and we came up with this
[1:36:34] would be a better fit this account than
a CIP manager at this time.
[1:36:43] That's it for now, Ron.
[1:36:45] So do we have financial people
in like the HRA?
[1:36:49] I know we have in the HRA to support
have them.
[1:36:52] I mean, do we need to be compartmentalized
[1:36:56] between those groups or could
there there be some cross training
[1:37:01] amongst all the finance people
so you can get some some backups?
[1:37:04] Yeah.
[1:37:05] So the organization
for as long as I've been here
[1:37:09] 25 years plus the HRA has always had
[1:37:14] the has always been very independent.
[1:37:16] I talked to their finance people
[1:37:19] 2 or 3 times a year, and it's
usually about, hey, the levy's coming up.
[1:37:23] I need you to provide this information.
[1:37:25] The port used to have its own finance
[1:37:28] department, the shell, and used to have
its own finance department.
[1:37:31] And those have been merged into the city's
[1:37:34] finance department,
but specifically to the HRA.
[1:37:38] They still stand as an outlier.
[1:37:40] And,
Chris is probably better verse on why
[1:37:45] that is because of the different charters
or whatever it may be.
[1:37:49] I'm not entirely sure, but
all I can say is they have historically
[1:37:52] and always been that that way in their own
finance.
[1:37:56] People are person. We've been.
[1:38:02] Specifically to Kyle,
[1:38:03] he's very good
finance mind and has a lot of good ideas.
[1:38:06] But I don't think he's going to help us in
backing up payroll
[1:38:09] unless it is.
[1:38:13] Do you mind, for the sake of time again,
if I.
[1:38:15] Mayor,
do you mind if I start on that side?
[1:38:18] Any thoughts on this position?
[1:38:19] I know you just ate a chocolate,
so I'm sorry.
[1:38:22] No, that's fine, I.
[1:38:24] I can go either way on this.
[1:38:25] I, I'm concerned that we really don't
have a cross-training program for backup.
[1:38:32] I mean, in my company,
we have several people that can do it
[1:38:34] because you cannot miss payroll. So.
[1:38:39] And I'd like to thank, Miss Parel
because I get,
[1:38:42] you can sign up on Minnesota,
state Minnesota for any kind of grants.
[1:38:48] And I saw a grant come through
that might help our water department.
[1:38:50] She says I'm on it.
[1:38:51] They're going to use it for, fluoride
pump of some sort.
[1:38:55] But thank you.
[1:38:56] And I think that's
what our department should also do.
[1:38:58] I mean, that be proactive.
[1:39:03] Thank you know.
[1:39:07] If you think that they
[1:39:10] the demand is not high
for the CIP manager,
[1:39:14] and there's staff
who are cross-trained enough
[1:39:18] to be able to pick up those duties,
[1:39:21] and you really do
need the support financially.
[1:39:24] So to transition this from one position
to the other, I would support that
[1:39:29] because I really think it's important
that that staff
[1:39:33] are capable
of doing a number of different things
[1:39:37] and filling in those gaps,
[1:39:38] because there's nothing worse
than having that position be full and then
[1:39:42] I think the word you used was triage,
and that's a medical term
[1:39:46] that I don't think
that the city should be employing.
[1:39:54] A support option be,
[1:39:58] I'd also like a follow up,
[1:39:59] update after this person is hired,
when the cross training is completed.
[1:40:13] I'm on the fence, but I'll support B.
[1:40:18] With the same caveat.
[1:40:21] It'll be the first thing
they're going to be introduced to.
[1:40:24] So after report.
[1:40:26] And I'm still at the point
I mean I've requested to look at different
[1:40:29] finance departments.
[1:40:30] We talked about this up
known still haven't gotten the information
[1:40:32] I asked about comparing other
like size cities compared to after.
[1:40:36] So at this point
I just have to say no, I want to help.
[1:40:40] I want us to be cross-trained,
but I just can't justify it at this time,
[1:40:43] especially with the information
that requested and haven't received
[1:40:47] yet. So.
[1:40:50] I, I feel the same way.
[1:40:52] And,
[1:40:55] you know, the question I have is, are we,
it would be nice
[1:40:59] to compare us to maybe some other cities
and how their finance departments work.
[1:41:03] And are we using all of the up to date
and most modern software that we can?
[1:41:09] With the AI revolution that's going on,
[1:41:13] there might be ways to, to make this,
this whole process simpler.
[1:41:17] I don't know, I'm
not a not an accountant, but,
[1:41:21] I think I would rather research that,
[1:41:25] those options before we,
we obligate ourselves at this point.
[1:41:31] You know, if we come in at
[1:41:32] 2.9 at the end, I would maybe consider
going back and changing that.
[1:41:37] But, at this point, we still need to find
savings in our, in our budgeting here.
[1:41:43] So I'm going to say no at this time.
[1:41:47] I'm in the same mind as Janie, and I'm.
[1:41:53] All right,
[1:41:53] any thing else on FTE
is that we need to cover.
[1:41:59] And I'll move us on.
[1:42:00] I didn't know Marshall or Chris or Tony.
[1:42:03] If you want to go right
into these proposals for consideration.
[1:42:06] I know that paid family leave is,
[1:42:08] I don't know how you want to organize it,
so I'll hand it back over to you guys.
[1:42:11] What you want to do?
[1:42:12] Well, I think we're okay again,
just continuing on right in order.
[1:42:16] So, first for consideration
[1:42:19] is a few items, proposals
for consideration for council to make.
[1:42:24] They're all listed there.
[1:42:27] I hope they're straightforward.
[1:42:28] Starting with the police department
has an e-bike in the CIP.
[1:42:33] What we're proposing is utilizing
a transfer from the Green Fund.
[1:42:38] This would be a qualifying expense.
[1:42:40] So we could use a transfer for that 4900.
[1:42:44] The second one
there is the council contingency
[1:42:48] that we've discussed
at previous workshops.
[1:42:51] We'd be recommending,
[1:42:54] lowering that from the preliminary
amount of 250,000 to get it back
[1:42:59] down to the $200,000 amount,
which it is in 2025.
[1:43:04] So same amount,
[1:43:06] on park side,
[1:43:09] we could consider postponing,
[1:43:12] invasive weed control measures on
[1:43:15] I think it's specific to Barn Bluff area.
[1:43:19] That would be $10,000 of savings.
[1:43:22] And then finally on this page, Chief
[1:43:26] Warner has gone through
quite a bit of research.
[1:43:30] He had in the original preliminary levy,
[1:43:33] a $50,000 very professionally done.
[1:43:37] It's a standards of coverage study.
[1:43:40] And he is proposing finding some savings
by doing more of an in-house option.
[1:43:46] That would result in about $35,000
of savings from preliminary budget.
[1:43:53] So our
[1:43:53] question to the city council is really,
[1:43:57] do you want us to move
forward with these does
[1:44:00] is there any hesitation on the council's
part or.
[1:44:05] Kim, do you want to
[1:44:06] I do have a question
about the Green Fund.
[1:44:09] How much do we currently have in there?
[1:44:12] You know, I wrote it down.
[1:44:13] I forgot to bring it with me,
but I want to say it was.
[1:44:17] You better look it up.
[1:44:18] Yeah, I think I'll look it up,
but it's it's a fairly substantial amount.
[1:44:24] It's in the $100,000 range.
[1:44:26] And how much are we putting into it
each year?
[1:44:29] Like this year zero.
[1:44:31] The next year zero. It has to go.
So it's zeroed out.
[1:44:33] Yeah.
It hasn't gone to for a couple of years.
[1:44:38] Well they look that up.
[1:44:39] Any other questions or comments on these
extra proposals for consideration.
[1:44:45] Yeah okay.
[1:44:45] Multitasking
guys if I have the camera okay.
[1:44:48] The key
[1:44:49] to I have a question
on the contingency if,
[1:44:52] if we keep it exactly the same
this year to next year.
[1:44:55] How does that consider
how does that consider inflation?
[1:45:00] It doesn't
[1:45:03] I don't think of it as an inflationary,
[1:45:06] issue.
[1:45:07] What we do is we looked at the trends.
[1:45:09] So we've looked at the trends.
[1:45:10] There's been a few years
where are the past ten
[1:45:13] where we actually use
and I think we provided
[1:45:15] some of this earlier
in the budget process.
[1:45:17] But we actually use the $500,000
that we used to set up for contingency.
[1:45:22] But those were always very specific
to certain
[1:45:26] events,
primarily related to weather and snow.
[1:45:29] And then, crime,
[1:45:33] criminal asset,
[1:45:34] resulted in a lot of extra overtime.
[1:45:37] We haven't had those.
[1:45:38] So over the last, you know, 4 or 5 years,
we've used the contingency anywhere
[1:45:42] between 200 and 400,000 and haven't used
the entirety of it this year.
[1:45:48] We haven't used
the entirety of the 200,000.
[1:45:50] So we reconsider and we just on based on
[1:45:54] trends in the 200,000 has been sufficient
the last few years.
[1:45:58] Optimistically, no big snowstorms, no,
[1:46:03] extraordinary criminal activity.
[1:46:06] At this point, we think it would suffice.
[1:46:08] There's always a conversation
you recall about fund balance.
[1:46:11] Even if we, utilize the
all the contingency,
[1:46:16] the city council still can use
[1:46:19] some of that fund balance to address
any kind of emergency situation.
[1:46:22] Two thank you for that
clarification. I appreciate it.
[1:46:26] To circle back to the Green Fund.
[1:46:27] The Green Fund has $115,000 available.
[1:46:31] And as Marshall mentioned, we have
no money going in there for next year.
[1:46:36] I'm fine.
[1:46:37] No money going in there.
[1:46:39] I think that's a great use of it.
[1:46:41] Is for the e-bike.
[1:46:43] I don't remember all the details
of what it can be used for.
[1:46:47] But can it be
[1:46:49] used for the prescribed burns to,
[1:46:53] to fight the invasive plants?
[1:46:56] It was
[1:46:57] I mean, it was it was initially set up
for energy conservation
[1:47:02] and really looking at, electric vehicles,
[1:47:06] you might recall talking about fire trucks
and things of that nature.
[1:47:09] But the council has full discretion over
how those funds are spent.
[1:47:14] But that was essentially
what it was established for.
[1:47:18] I just hate to see us get behind
on the invasive species,
[1:47:22] because it it's pretty,
pretty prevalent around our city.
[1:47:26] If you look and see green in the woods
right now, it's invasive because.
[1:47:30] And the thought on that was,
there are there were some,
[1:47:36] looking for the word here,Shawn.
[1:47:38] Loose, loose commitments
to help maintain and keep that.
[1:47:43] They just haven't materialized yet.
[1:47:45] So we're optimistic
if we give it another year that might help
[1:47:49] produce those funds to help offset city
costs for invasive control.
[1:47:52] Okay, mayor, at some point, not now,
but could you just send me, what?
[1:47:58] We can use the funds for sure.
[1:48:01] January is fine.
[1:48:02] I you know, it could you could
you said that out to the whole council.
[1:48:08] In past years, we've had discussions
about eliminating that green fund
[1:48:11] and is transferring it
to the general fund.
[1:48:17] Is there any more consideration to that?
[1:48:21] We weren't
making any budget decisions on that.
[1:48:24] But that, again, is a council.
[1:48:28] It's a it's a year program.
[1:48:30] The council has full discretion
over what they want to do with it.
[1:48:36] I do like the idea
[1:48:37] of if we can see if we can use it
for the invasive bird,
[1:48:41] but if it if there's a possibility
of getting Grant the grant or whatever,
[1:48:45] we should do that
before we pull it from there.
[1:48:48] But if we don't get it in the,
and we should do these burns because
[1:48:55] you get behind on it
and it's more expensive.
[1:48:58] Yeah.
[1:48:58] So and I will note that
because our, the thought behind
[1:49:03] it was let's just give it a year, see
if those grants will materialize.
[1:49:06] If they don't we will definitely be
bringing it up again.
[1:49:09] Next year.
[1:49:12] Moving us on.
[1:49:13] Any more thoughts on these considerations?
[1:49:14] Are we all okay and clear direction on
that for you guys? Yes.
[1:49:18] Okay.
[1:49:20] Let's move on to the
[1:49:20] paid family and medical leave options.
[1:49:24] All right.
[1:49:24] With that,
we had our, Minnesota paid family leave.
[1:49:27] Hopefully everybody knows what it is
at this point.
[1:49:31] If you don't, please
[1:49:33] clarify it.
[1:49:34] But what we are looking to do
[1:49:37] is get firm concrete, you know, 100%.
[1:49:41] What are we?
[1:49:41] What way is the council deciding for us
to go?
[1:49:44] As you all know
from the benefit workshop in October,
[1:49:49] there's an up private option.
[1:49:51] The MetLife option?
[1:49:56] You know, we feel the advantage to that
[1:49:58] would not just be in, slight
[1:50:03] savings in rate,
[1:50:05] but in the administrative ease
of the program.
[1:50:08] It's it's likely to be that,
you know, MetLife has has run this
[1:50:12] program and other states
[1:50:14] likely just going to be
[1:50:15] that much more administratively
easy and, and user friendly.
[1:50:19] Frankly,
[1:50:21] the MetLife option,
[1:50:24] do you have budgeted right now?
[1:50:26] So as you see on there, the top line
currently in the budget is oh,
[1:50:32] so the other part of this law is
[1:50:34] employers are required
to cover half of the cost.
[1:50:39] And that's the amount that I have
in the current budget.
[1:50:43] We use the state rate at the time.
[1:50:45] So the .88 percent, half of
that is the 0.44
[1:50:49] that's currently in the budget.
[1:50:52] It is any employer's option
to cover more than half,
[1:50:57] but it is a requirement to cover
at least half.
[1:51:01] So we laid out
just a couple other ranges there.
[1:51:04] It's likely
I don't know if it's official,
[1:51:08] but it's likely we're going
with the MetLife option.
[1:51:12] So we have on there, if we did
[1:51:16] the employer, half of the MetLife rate,
[1:51:19] three
[1:51:20] quarters of the MetLife rate, fully
funding the MetLife rate.
[1:51:23] I mean, it's really, a decision we'd like
[1:51:28] to have determined here tonight
just so we can tie up those loose strings.
[1:51:31] It doesn't have drastic
necessarily budgetary changes,
[1:51:35] but also administratively.
[1:51:38] I think we need to just make that decision
because there are some deadlines
[1:51:42] coming up.
[1:51:42] To be able to choose which option work.
[1:51:46] And half of the MetLife rate,
which you're saying
[1:51:49] is easier
administratively to conduct and provide.
[1:51:54] Yeah, that's a that's our belief.
[1:51:55] This program already exists in 14
other states.
[1:52:01] And MetLife has administered
this program in other states.
[1:52:05] It's hard to anticipate a new program
rolling out in this in a state
[1:52:10] and knowing just how well the rollout
is going to actually occur.
[1:52:14] So, I mean, there's there's
some quantifiable data that MetLife
[1:52:19] already knows what this looks like,
and it's just going to be
[1:52:23] that much easier
should any of our employees participate.
[1:52:26] So I mean, that's a consideration
that, you know,
[1:52:29] given it's a new state program,
we've all seen how the, rolled out.
[1:52:33] So we believe that, you know,
[1:52:35] it would be friendly and more friendlier
administratively.
[1:52:38] And again, for those end users
working with MetLife that just, you know,
[1:52:42] they specialize in
this, this is what they do.
[1:52:46] Any concerns with that recommendation.
[1:52:48] But did you have a comment.
[1:52:49] Yeah I have two questions.
[1:52:51] One, so we have to provide it
to the employees.
[1:52:55] Have to take it.
[1:52:56] Yes okay.
[1:52:57] Police are required. There.
[1:53:00] Yeah. There is no opt out.
[1:53:02] Then can I ask a second of workers.
[1:53:04] So if if I'm an employee and I how much if
[1:53:09] how much is it going to cost me
if as a council person, I vote for half
[1:53:13] the MetLife rate and I'm paying
half as an employee versus a fully funded,
[1:53:19] it would cost the same amount
for the employee
[1:53:21] as it would cost for the employer
under that case,
[1:53:24] because you're
basically splitting the rate.
[1:53:27] So if you've the so it's
going to cost them
[1:53:30] $77,000 in collectively the whole city,
the whole city.
[1:53:34] But I want to know on my paycheck okay.
[1:53:37] Let's deploy.
[1:53:38] It would be it would be
[1:53:42] the rate would be 0.0042 times
what your wages are.
[1:53:49] So it's .004 to the four one in this case.
[1:53:53] Excuse me. Okay.
[1:53:54] Whatever your wage you make.
[1:53:57] Okay. And that's annually.
[1:54:00] Yes. Annually.
[1:54:01] They break it down by pay period.
It's probably.
[1:54:04] Yeah. Yeah.
[1:54:04] It's a it's just like any other payroll
tax, a couple bucks a project probably.
[1:54:09] Okay. Thank you.
[1:54:10] Can I just, having gone through this
and done a lot of research on it
[1:54:16] and how to save money
and my own organization,
[1:54:19] I support the move in that life
rather than the state.
[1:54:23] All of them that I looked at
were better administered
[1:54:26] than what I believe
the state will roll out.
[1:54:29] And,
[1:54:33] you know, I, I'll say I, I support that
[1:54:37] for, paying the half
[1:54:39] and having the employer
pay the other half.
[1:54:44] I think we got good consensus on that.
[1:54:46] I really want to.
[1:54:47] I'm have concerns or, you know, half my life, I think you do have to do have. Okay.
[1:54:52] Anything
[1:54:54] point I say yes at this point.
[1:54:57] Okay.
[1:54:58] As the conversation continues,
I might have something else to add.
[1:55:02] Okay. Thank you.
[1:55:04] I can move on
to some administrative changes,
[1:55:07] and I would just like to at least say
that we're at 704.
[1:55:10] So if we do our and I get over here
by eight, not that we don't all are having
[1:55:13] a great time,
but just to be cognizant of the time.
[1:55:18] I don't know anywhere else
why else to put it.
[1:55:21] We appreciate that.
[1:55:24] So administratively
we've already entered some changes.
[1:55:27] Please has a few line items.
[1:55:31] We we were able to talk to Nick
and realize a couple revenue lines
[1:55:36] that we could raise.
[1:55:37] So we had charted the preliminary
in recoverable over time.
[1:55:41] So we corrected that by 6400.
[1:55:44] We realized there was some parking fines
and forfeits
[1:55:48] with our increased enforcement activity
that we could add $9,000 in revenue.
[1:55:53] Yeah. Red line
red items on here, by the way.
[1:55:56] Reduce
the levy. Green items, increase the levy.
[1:56:01] There were three items that we did
increase.
[1:56:04] Police uniforms.
[1:56:05] These are for the administrative staff.
[1:56:08] The non payroll related type ones.
[1:56:10] That that was
[1:56:12] just kind of something that was missed
in the preliminary budgeting process.
[1:56:15] But we decided to correct it.
[1:56:18] The criminal prosecution,
the Goodhue County side
[1:56:24] overall it was a 5% increase from 2025.
[1:56:30] And this increase adjusts to correct that.
[1:56:35] Winter planters.
[1:56:37] That's an activity that has occurred
the last couple of years.
[1:56:41] Somehow, mistakenly, there was nothing
included in the 25 budget.
[1:56:46] We may have an item
before the end of the year before you.
[1:56:49] We're getting out in front of it
for the 26 budget.
[1:56:52] And what we're proposing is, counsel
contribution of $10,000 with the remainder
[1:56:58] coming from some sort of fundraising
through downtown Main Street.
[1:57:02] The historical cost of this project
in the last four years,
[1:57:07] since it fully formed,
is between 15 and $20,000.
[1:57:12] So we feel like a $10,000 contribution
is probably somewhere in the middle.
[1:57:18] Then those
[1:57:21] last three items,
the one on the bottom there, that's really
[1:57:25] just a reflection of what we decided
last week that was that transfer
[1:57:30] from to the library
being reduced to not higher.
[1:57:34] One of the library positions.
[1:57:37] There's, software that HR
[1:57:40] uses, that one of the modules
is not being utilized.
[1:57:43] And we feel like we're going to be able
to get that canceled
[1:57:46] and not have to pay it.
[1:57:49] And then that other one,
[1:57:51] the education reimbursement,
that's, that's a line that has existed
[1:57:55] for quite a while, but
just hasn't really been fully utilized.
[1:57:59] There's $30,000 in the budget.
[1:58:02] And if we take a look historically
up to the last ten years or so,
[1:58:08] roughly half of that over the last
ten years it has been utilized for.
[1:58:13] So this is kind of
just a rightsizing of that program,
[1:58:17] not an elimination of it,
but getting it more in line with what
[1:58:22] what we expect to see.
[1:58:27] So those are the operating items.
[1:58:29] And then we also have
just some administrative
[1:58:32] changes on the capital side. The CIP side.
[1:58:36] And before engineering
[1:58:39] Director Rainier takes a bow.
[1:58:45] There's a few items there
[1:58:47] that are reclassifying
[1:58:50] simply because of how we do our CIP inside
of our budgeting software.
[1:58:56] The $13,000 in the $60,000
[1:58:59] weren't incorporated
into our original CIP numbers.
[1:59:03] So we're really just course
correcting to get those correct.
[1:59:07] They're not new projects.
[1:59:11] They're not.
[1:59:13] They're not reclassifying the years
or anything.
[1:59:16] It's just it's it's getting them correctly
included into our general fund CIP
[1:59:22] because they generally have
[1:59:23] there's typically at least one
alley project every year.
[1:59:27] So this gets that alley
project scheduled in the right year.
[1:59:31] So there is an alley project and 26,
[1:59:35] there's a couple of dump trucks.
[1:59:38] That first one there,
the single axle dump truck.
[1:59:43] Sean has brought forward an opportunity.
[1:59:45] This was a truck that is fully in
the was fully in the 2027
[1:59:50] CIP amount for $275,000.
[1:59:54] We're bumping up from 27 to 26,
[1:59:59] 150,000 to purchase the chassis,
[2:00:03] to kind of avoid some federal
[2:00:07] emission standards
that are coming by then.
[2:00:11] So we're really we're going to bump up.
[2:00:14] So it'll be a reduction of the 27 CIP
[2:00:18] and moving that chassis purchase forward
[2:00:21] in 26.
[2:00:24] The next one is the dual axle dump truck.
[2:00:26] That's one that Shawn and his staff
have determined
[2:00:31] the existing truck
[2:00:33] that would be on slate to be replaced
[2:00:36] is still operational,
[2:00:38] with the caveat of some additional
[2:00:43] I guess we can call it maintenance, but
it's really just purchase of a new box.
[2:00:46] I believe.
[2:00:50] So that was in
[2:00:51] the the preliminary CIP
for that total, that 210,000
[2:00:57] with 136
originating from the general fund.
[2:01:01] What Shawn has proposed is bumping
that because of the condition of the truck
[2:01:06] that would be replaced by this purchase,
[2:01:10] he can extend the life of that.
[2:01:12] So moving from 2026 to 2031,
[2:01:16] with the increased maintenance
cost of 50,000, there.
[2:01:21] And then Shawn also offered out
[2:01:24] there was a roadside mower
in the preliminary CIP
[2:01:27] that just.
[2:01:31] Is being eliminated, from the CIP.
[2:01:35] And then this is the chance
for engineering Director
[2:01:37] Regnier to take Vo,
because he came in last week
[2:01:41] and he offered up that the scope of work
[2:01:45] has changed on the railroad crossing quiet
[2:01:48] zone.
[2:01:51] All I hear him explain
any of the technical details on it,
[2:01:55] but essentially the scope of work
could change.
[2:01:57] The original project looked like
it would need to be more extensive.
[2:02:01] He spent quite a bit of time
with the railroads.
[2:02:05] And in those meetings
and in those terminations,
[2:02:08] he's determined
or been able to determine that far
[2:02:13] less will be required
to still accomplish the same goal.
[2:02:17] And do you want to go ahead
and just mention what it is?
[2:02:19] And also you throw throwing that caveat
about that November 7th or 14th date?
[2:02:23] Sure. Yeah.
[2:02:25] The the caveat is this technically,
we're still in the review period.
[2:02:29] Haven't received any comments
and don't expect any.
[2:02:31] But it doesn't end until November 17th.
[2:02:34] But again, don't expect any comments.
[2:02:37] But essentially
we were under the impression
[2:02:40] based on all prior discussions
going back to 2020, even,
[2:02:45] that we were going to need
a new quad gate system.
[2:02:47] If you recall, we
talked about that the spring,
[2:02:51] I was able to talk
[2:02:52] with the railroad and more beneficially,
the freight staff,
[2:02:57] the Federal Rail Administration staff,
[2:03:00] on some alternative options and,
and talking with Shawn,
[2:03:06] we should be able to implement
a different way to do it.
[2:03:10] We can channelize the road
instead of putting up gates.
[2:03:12] We can leave the crossing alone
and do some road work within the roadway
[2:03:17] and,
yeah, save a significant amount of money.
[2:03:21] And truthfully,
the 600,000 that was in there
[2:03:24] probably was a half million dollars
short of what we would have needed
[2:03:27] if we needed the quad gate arms.
[2:03:28] So, it was again with the assumption
[2:03:33] that we do get no further comments.
[2:03:37] A good savings and
[2:03:39] a lot easier to implement
because we don't have to wait
[2:03:42] for the railroad to install a new gate.
[2:03:45] Wow. I feel like I
[2:03:46] have an awesome comment for that, but
all I can say is wow, great job, good job.
[2:03:50] Yeah. And amazing.
[2:03:53] Yeah, I was not expecting that.
[2:03:54] And I got called to my office by
[2:03:57] these two.
[2:03:58] It's usually the conversation you had
with public works or engineering.
[2:04:01] So very nice.
[2:04:05] Can I just ask where it. Shawn.
[2:04:07] For the dual axle dump truck
and for you guys?
[2:04:12] You said there's a 50,000.
[2:04:13] Where's that 50,000 on this
to replace the.
[2:04:19] It's the 32,000.
[2:04:20] So that truck is used
both in the utility side.
[2:04:24] So water sewer
and in the general fund side.
[2:04:26] So that cost is broken down.
[2:04:28] The 32,000 would be
the general fund portion 9000.
[2:04:32] The two $9,000.
[2:04:33] The 18,000 combined would be the water
and the sewer portion.
[2:04:36] Okay. Contributions. All right. Thank you.
[2:04:40] Any other questions on these CIP items
[2:04:44] so that this is not here?
[2:04:46] There are two different things.
[2:04:47] The report I was looking at the report
and I'm seeing correct.
[2:04:50] The 50,000 was added today.
[2:04:54] To update.
[2:05:01] So it's still have significant savings
from the capital improvement plan.
[2:05:04] We believe this plan works.
[2:05:06] And, we would recommend moving with it.
[2:05:11] Any other questions
[2:05:12] or concerns on these changes?
[2:05:16] Just so taking off the road side more.
[2:05:19] That's fine.
[2:05:20] Yeah. It's, it's a piece of equipment.
[2:05:22] That was.
[2:05:23] It was the is it's, schedule replacement.
[2:05:28] And we're.
[2:05:33] Not sure that when that piece of equipment
[2:05:36] breaks and it's irreparable, we're not
so sure we'll just continue that.
[2:05:40] We'll probably contract that work.
[2:05:42] Oh, okay.
[2:05:45] Well, again, to all the departments,
I would say thank you because you've
[2:05:48] obviously put some extra work into these
and creative ways.
[2:05:51] And so thank you for doing that. Well,
[2:05:54] so now we've got
a little additional information for you.
[2:05:57] We're not recommending any changes,
but we've had
[2:06:00] questions from the mayor
and city council about this.
[2:06:03] So we thought this would be an opportune
time for to allow you to have
[2:06:06] a discussion about them.
[2:06:11] So the first one is on the performance
pages.
[2:06:14] There's been questions
about the city's performance pay.
[2:06:17] These are the
[2:06:19] these are the numbers,
that we've had budgeted and,
[2:06:22] and compared to actual so if council
wants any additional information
[2:06:28] that other was in the agenda
or is attached to the slide,
[2:06:32] please ask away.
[2:06:39] Any questions or comments on this?
[2:06:43] Mayor
[2:06:44] I haven't seen or it's graded at all.
[2:06:50] And the metrics and things.
[2:06:51] If I could get that, I'd appreciate it.
[2:06:54] Yeah.
[2:06:54] Well, as the I don't need right now.
[2:06:56] Yeah. We’ll ask HR send that.
[2:06:57] Thank you. That's
something that we can have HR include.
[2:07:00] Thank you.
[2:07:03] So I'll I'll go first.
[2:07:06] I'm very uncomfortable with this program.
[2:07:12] I have been since I first saw it.
[2:07:15] When I look at the criteria,
[2:07:20] for this program, it's,
[2:07:24] very soft, very, very soft.
[2:07:27] And there are
[2:07:29] there are no metrics to it.
[2:07:32] There's just not metrics.
[2:07:34] And,
[2:07:36] a positive, cooperative approach
to working with,
[2:07:39] like, the leaders to me, that your job,
[2:07:43] significant contributions
[2:07:46] to City council's strategic priorities,
goals and objectives.
[2:07:49] It's part of the job definition.
[2:07:52] So I'm and as I go down,
[2:07:55] I'm uncomfortable and coming
[2:07:58] coming from my background where we did
[2:08:01] have incentive programs for leaders,
which I support, I fully support.
[2:08:06] It was very based in metrics.
[2:08:08] And I can tell you, the first metric
was financial performance.
[2:08:13] Now it's different in the public sector,
and I understand that.
[2:08:16] But I can tell you that if the company,
[2:08:20] even if my division of the company met
[2:08:22] the performance metrics
or even exceeded them,
[2:08:25] but the entire company as a whole did,
no one got a bonus or an incentive pay.
[2:08:31] And then there were other things.
[2:08:32] So I was in quality and safety.
[2:08:34] So we met the financial metrics.
[2:08:36] But if the organization didn't
meet the quality and safety metrics,
[2:08:40] we didn't get that proportion
of the bonus.
[2:08:42] This is not,
[2:08:45] this is not based on measurable, metrics.
[2:08:50] That bothers me.
[2:08:51] The second thing that concerns me is,
[2:08:55] and I know I'm comparing,
[2:08:58] private to public,
and it's probably not a fair comparison,
[2:09:02] but it's interesting here
[2:09:05] that even the nonunion
[2:09:07] employees get the same Cola
[2:09:10] benefits that the union employees get.
[2:09:13] So if the union and I can't remember
exactly what we negotiated for
[2:09:17] the next two years, the,
the exempt employees
[2:09:21] get that same Cola,
[2:09:25] same cola increase.
[2:09:27] That's
generally not true in the private sector.
[2:09:31] So we have leaders who are getting
[2:09:37] raises.
[2:09:37] And I'm not saying you shouldn't
get raises.
[2:09:39] And then on top of that
you're getting incentive pay.
[2:09:43] That's
really not based on measurable metrics.
[2:09:46] So I am very uncomfortable
[2:09:49] with continuing this program as it is.
[2:09:53] It just
[2:09:54] it it is,
[2:09:57] it doesn't seem
[2:09:59] fair.
[2:10:01] Fair to our taxpayers, fair to our city.
[2:10:05] It just doesn't seem very fair.
[2:10:11] Kim. When we did the
[2:10:14] the most recent pay study,
we compare it to other cities
[2:10:17] and we hired, consultant to look at all
this.
[2:10:22] This was taken into account based on how
we compare it across the board.
[2:10:29] And I don't believe that there was
[2:10:31] any other cities
that had anything quite like this.
[2:10:35] So I questioned, maintain it.
[2:10:40] It's, maintaining it as it currently is.
[2:10:45] Without some sort of review
[2:10:49] within it.
[2:10:55] There's um. Ron?
[2:10:58] I would agree with
what's been said already.
[2:11:00] The other thing is to
is, is like with the step increases
[2:11:03] and you're kind of guaranteed.
[2:11:05] I mean, what is a step increase
in the new pay plan?
[2:11:07] 3.1 or 3.7% a year?
[2:11:11] I think it's 3.2 or 3, two five, 3.2,
[2:11:15] you know,
and so then like this year, there's a 4%
[2:11:19] cola next year or a 3% cola.
[2:11:22] You know, in my experience
in the private sector, you know,
[2:11:25] and we had an incentive program,
but half of it was a company related.
[2:11:29] How did the company do?
[2:11:30] You know,
if they didn't meet their goals, half
[2:11:32] your incentive was gone right off the bat.
[2:11:34] And then a lot of
times your individual goals,
[2:11:37] you know, are part of that
[2:11:37] overall overarching goal
that the company had.
[2:11:40] So a lot of times that was cut back to.
[2:11:44] So I agree that there's not enough
metrics here.
[2:11:46] The other thing is too,
in the private sector,
[2:11:49] not everybody gets the same Cola,
you know, like the exempt people.
[2:11:54] That's
all based on your performance as well.
[2:11:57] So I agree with what's been said.
[2:11:59] And and just my experience
is that there isn't enough here.
[2:12:03] You know, I would like to see the 50% be,
you know, what we do with the levy.
[2:12:07] And I know we kind of control
a lot of what happens
[2:12:11] with the levy, right,
based on the decisions we make.
[2:12:15] So a lot of times
it's out of your control,
[2:12:16] but it's not much different
[2:12:17] than in the private sector
where you're in the in a big company.
[2:12:22] Right.
[2:12:22] And you have no no say over
what their overarching goals are and say,
[2:12:26] this is a path for me and you can know
that, you know, that's not going to work,
[2:12:30] but that's just how it goes.
[2:12:31] So I would like to see I don't know
that we need to get rid of it totally,
[2:12:36] but I think there
needs to be a little more,
[2:12:39] objectivity in here.
[2:12:45] Yeah.
[2:12:45] I don't think it's any secret.
[2:12:47] I've been opposed to this
since the day I was elected.
[2:12:50] First term.
[2:12:52] You know,
it would be really interesting to know,
[2:12:56] how long
this has been in effect in Red wing.
[2:12:59] And what other communities?
[2:13:01] It just seems to me that it's really odd
that were bonuses based on,
[2:13:08] you know, on the, the list of, of items
[2:13:12] that are on our sheet here.
[2:13:16] You know, we, we did last year,
[2:13:19] pay equity study and, and,
I think when it was all said and done,
[2:13:23] most received about a 9% increase
in their, in their salaries.
[2:13:29] I'll tell.
[2:13:31] So I don't, I don't think that, you know,
[2:13:35] we're not paying fairly,
[2:13:38] for staff, you know,
I mean, would I be open
[2:13:41] possibly to, another way of doing it,
[2:13:45] but I would be,
I would be in favor of reducing
[2:13:49] just this cost of $308,000
that we're budgeting.
[2:13:55] To reduce our levy.
[2:13:58] I think it I
[2:14:03] this is a complicated comparison,
and I'm going to make it anyway.
[2:14:06] Here's the situation as I see it.
[2:14:10] We just said that we would do
[2:14:13] the city would offer
half of the paid family leave,
[2:14:17] and the other half
would come out of the employee paycheck.
[2:14:21] I heard that, and, I said
I was probably going to circle back.
[2:14:24] And here we are.
[2:14:25] And we're talking about performance pay,
and we're talking about performance
[2:14:29] pay for the one group
that has to go on Iqra Insurance.
[2:14:35] So they have an extraordinary, situation
[2:14:38] where we negotiate with our union staff
and in the union staff
[2:14:43] have our health insurance,
[2:14:46] which is a significantly better
package overall or less, you know.
[2:14:51] Right.
[2:14:51] And so I am mindful of when,
[2:14:57] when the staff who take that promotion,
they say yes to this.
[2:15:02] They also say yes
to stepping off the insurance.
[2:15:05] And that's a big deal these days.
[2:15:07] And I think about the and
and the sacrifice, if you will,
[2:15:13] of stepping out of that with the knowledge
that there's this opportunity
[2:15:17] that I can probably pay my health
insurance with my performance pay,
[2:15:24] that's where my brain goes.
[2:15:26] So I'm using my performance pay,
probably to pay for my health insurance,
[2:15:30] because I'm not getting it so that being
a working person, that's where my head is
[2:15:36] thinking about how that investment
is, it's a real thing.
[2:15:41] And,
[2:15:44] Should we look at tidying up
this performance?
[2:15:48] I'm not saying that we should just
be passing out bonuses.
[2:15:51] That's not what I'm saying at all.
[2:15:53] However, at the same time,
[2:15:56] if we're going to say, let's
go ahead and eliminate this performance
[2:16:00] pay, I'm going to say,
then let's go ahead and get rid of Iqra
[2:16:04] and pull everybody back in to our health
insurance.
[2:16:07] That is my that is what I'm proposing.
[2:16:10] If we say no to this,
then I say we say yes to the other.
[2:16:14] And,
[2:16:14] And I really want us to think about that
because I think that's a real concern
[2:16:18] that people who are in leadership
in this organization have, I
[2:16:24] that's a real consideration.
[2:16:27] I'd like you to consider that as well.
[2:16:33] Mayor Iiocco, do you want to add anything?
[2:16:35] I know I think you went first,
so I don't mean to...
[2:16:37] I just
how many folks are on the performance pay?
[2:16:42] It's roughly 55 050.
[2:16:45] Okay. Thanks.
[2:16:47] I just need to know
[2:16:50] the whole program.
[2:16:50] I see this, I understand that,
but our metrics on who grades it,
[2:16:54] what's going on, what's it,
what's it compared to?
[2:16:58] I mean, when I was in business,
you know, we had performances like,
[2:17:02] you know,
[2:17:03] council Member Snyder was saying,
you know, here's what you have to agree to
[2:17:06] in here.
[2:17:07] It's kind of it's kind of open ended.
[2:17:09] It seems to me.
I just unless there's more into it.
[2:17:12] And I'd like whenever you get a chance,
I'd like more information on that.
[2:17:16] Yeah.
[2:17:16] And if I could,
I think it'd be important to get,
[2:17:20] probably our top of my head,
Shawn public safety side.
[2:17:24] Because one of the biggest reasons
this program came into existence
[2:17:30] was because of the difficulty in getting,
[2:17:32] good union members
to jump into a management role,
[2:17:37] and they could speak much more eloquently,
than I could about it,
[2:17:41] but that that I know that will could
creep up as an issue moving forward.
[2:17:47] Yeah.
[2:17:47] I guess I'll end with my comments
with of just I mean, I when I was someone
[2:17:51] that asked for these numbers and I was
I mean, I hate to be dramatic with it,
[2:17:54] but I was shocked
that it's that much money.
[2:17:56] I think to the public for 50 employees
like that number is huge.
[2:18:00] And again,
[2:18:01] and the idea that we've just done
a pay study, we've gotten everybody a very
[2:18:05] competitive market rate
that we've compared to other cities to it.
[2:18:09] It just is something
we have to reform in some way.
[2:18:12] And again, on the points
about like performance and incentives
[2:18:16] and metrics, I think that makes sense.
[2:18:18] I would be willing to have a little bit
of a hybrid system, maybe for 2026,
[2:18:22] where we set aside
100 grand rather than over 300,000, and
[2:18:27] and ask the staff to look at a new program
that could be done.
[2:18:31] And then with council approval, could go
ahead, would do that.
[2:18:33] I mean, that's what I'm comfortable with.
[2:18:35] I think just seeing these numbers
is too much, especially knowing the
[2:18:39] the increases in salaries
that have happened
[2:18:41] because of our pay studies
and and that had to happen too.
[2:18:43] But I just think in general, the benefits
is something
[2:18:47] we've been wanting to understand more
and to show some of it. So,
[2:18:52] I'll leave it at that.
[2:18:54] Any other
[2:18:56] comments or questions?
[2:18:57] I mean, I feel like that
gives a little bit of direction, but
[2:19:00] let me ask you a question, Janie.
[2:19:02] Then what do you think about, pulling,
pulling across
[2:19:05] and bringing the staff
back on to the self-insured policy?
[2:19:09] I understand where you're coming
from, Vicky, but I think that's way
[2:19:12] bigger conversation that I just
don't think we have time for tonight.
[2:19:16] So I proposed my hybrid thing,
and I appreciate you doing that,
[2:19:19] but I just think that's opening up
a huge can of worms for tonight.
[2:19:22] That's going to delay us much more.
[2:19:24] So I just would say
we can't have that discussion tonight.
[2:19:29] Any other questions or comments?
[2:19:31] I support the 100,000,
and I'd be willing to work with staff
[2:19:35] and figuring out a fair system
to, create this incentive program
[2:19:42] as what I.
[2:19:45] I think that's the
[2:19:45] thing
we're looking for pretty clear consensus,
[2:19:48] because in a way, we're doing this
a little out of order.
[2:19:51] It's not that there's a policy change
that's having an impact on the numbers
[2:19:57] we're trying to back into it.
[2:19:58] So if there's a consensus on a number
[2:20:01] that you want it reduced budget wise,
and then the policy has to change
[2:20:06] after the fact, that's what
[2:20:09] we would need direction on here tonight.
[2:20:12] How about we go down the line again,
maybe just say again, no,
[2:20:15] you don't want it anymore.
[2:20:16] Or if you're
okay with $100,000 in the budget that.
[2:20:20] Chris, you think that's a fair
way to do it or what?
[2:20:23] What do you think?
[2:20:25] I think that's fine.
[2:20:26] I mean, if you have differing amounts
to discuss,
[2:20:29] certainly,
but I've heard two comments on 100.
[2:20:32] That's a
[2:20:34] a starting point for discussion.
[2:20:36] Sure.
[2:20:36] If you want to change a number,
that's just fine. To
[2:20:40] Ron. I'll start over there.
[2:20:41] Sorry.
[2:20:43] I would say, you know, let's rework it.
[2:20:45] But I think maybe going down to 100
is a little too much.
[2:20:49] In the first bite.
[2:20:50] You know, I wouldn't be happy
going any more than half, you know.
[2:20:56] So 154 or whatever.
[2:21:03] I'm at I'm at zero.
[2:21:07] Okay.
[2:21:07] I mean, I'm fine going with 154.
[2:21:09] If we could get a good, consistent
consultant or a consensus on that number.
[2:21:15] So 154.
[2:21:19] I mean we've done zero.
[2:21:24] I'm feeling really frustrated and
[2:21:28] I'm going to say I'm going to say 308
[2:21:30] because I without
without additional conversation about,
[2:21:34] about my proposal,
I'm going to stay at 308.
[2:21:40] Mayor, do you want to add anything?
[2:21:41] I have.
[2:21:42] No, it's that's up to you folks. Ok.
[2:21:47] why don't we move on to kind of
our last item,
[2:21:49] the memberships,
which will probably take a while to.
[2:21:53] But let's do what we can.
[2:21:59] Yeah.
[2:21:59] So really simply here, here
we are reintroducing
[2:22:03] we talked about this at a prior workshop.
[2:22:08] But we're calling it out here again.
[2:22:09] And in the packet we provided
a little more detailed analysis on
[2:22:14] just what each one of these,
[2:22:18] city memberships is, the amount
[2:22:21] and then some narrative
on what it provides for the city.
[2:22:25] So I guess
if there were any of these memberships
[2:22:30] that council wanted to call out or ask
additional questions,
[2:22:34] I don't know if I feel the need
to read off the six pages
[2:22:37] worth of narrative on what
each one of them does, but
[2:22:40] and when we were compiling this two,
we spoke to most of these,
[2:22:46] different organizations.
[2:22:47] And most of you, if you ever want
to be willing to come down and provide you
[2:22:50] with whatever presentation you want to.
[2:22:55] Maybe
[2:22:55] we'll go right into the questions
and thoughts, if that's okay.
[2:22:58] Fran. Any questions?
[2:23:00] So the League of Minnesota
Cities, membership,
[2:23:03] do we have to have that membership
in order
[2:23:05] to get the insurance
and everything through the league
[2:23:08] first?
[2:23:10] Yes. And it's also beyond the insurance.
[2:23:13] There's a
a lot of other things to Framingham,
[2:23:16] like we could get the number of contacts
and calls that we've made through
[2:23:20] staff
to, to the various aspects of the league.
[2:23:22] But it's it's a lot of different things
that they do
[2:23:26] for for the city of Red Wing.
[2:23:29] And then for,
the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.
[2:23:33] Is anybody in the room on that?
[2:23:36] Also,
[2:23:37] you know, I, I guess I'd like to know,
I mean, is that do we get our money's
[2:23:41] worth from that, that one, I would say
I go back to I think I was here
[2:23:47] maybe a year or two and, we had a,
[2:23:51] assistant council administrator
named Jeff Holbrook, and the council
[2:23:55] was asking about memberships,
and I just remember vividly what he said.
[2:24:00] He said the to the council
is said to be derelict in your duty,
[2:24:04] up out of that partnership
or that coalition, and that's all he said.
[2:24:09] I would elaborate that the coalition
utility city is, is,
[2:24:14] extremely important because, first of all,
it's a small group of people.
[2:24:20] A small group of cities includes like
Monticello, Becker, Oak, Park Heights,
[2:24:25] Cohasset, Red wing that have these large
baseload plants in their communities.
[2:24:30] And prior to to its inception,
it was always,
[2:24:35] what was a David versus Goliath?
[2:24:39] And so at least pulling this group
together, we have a common voice,
[2:24:42] and we are much more effective
at the legislature pushing back
[2:24:47] or actually having a voice in the
conversation about utility taxation.
[2:24:51] And probably now more than ever,
it's really not just about how utilities
[2:24:56] and railroads and pipelines are taxed,
primarily utilities,
[2:25:00] but it's also what can the state
do to assist the communities
[2:25:04] that are going to be transitioning?
[2:25:05] Because we'll be one of those.
[2:25:07] So, the other thing I also wanted to
mention
[2:25:10] is it's not unusual for the coal ash
utility cities.
[2:25:15] I serve as a treasurer to boot.
[2:25:17] They collect, they have a war chest,
so to speak, and we've set a level
[2:25:22] that that war chest should never
that those resources should never be over
[2:25:26] one years annual do so
[2:25:29] for example, last year
our our dues were in that $50,000 range,
[2:25:34] but we also received a check
back for 75,000.
[2:25:37] So it's not
[2:25:39] technically
it's that's what we're going to pay.
[2:25:41] But we also
I just wanted to emphasize that
[2:25:44] if we have too many resources,
we do on a routine basis
[2:25:48] get substantial amounts back.
[2:25:50] But so my question was more on
the Coalition of Greater Minnesota cities.
[2:25:54] I understand the utilities,
but the coal, the other one, that
[2:25:57] that's a bigger group and it's more
this is more like tape.
[2:26:00] Yeah, I think you're right. Yep.
Thank you.
[2:26:02] I think those that groups are important
because I respect the league.
[2:26:06] I work with the league quite a bit
and the league
[2:26:11] is great at
[2:26:14] representing all cities.
[2:26:16] But it's difficult for them to represent
[2:26:19] and provide a voice for Greater Minnesota.
[2:26:22] So what I think about often is,
I mean, it's probably
[2:26:25] not even it's a probably
not a very well-kept, dirty little secret.
[2:26:29] But like the Met Council, Minneapolis,
Saint Paul, Rochester,
[2:26:32] they literally have lobbyists
at the Capitol all year. And
[2:26:37] greater Minnesota
[2:26:39] cities have needs that
only the GMC is the voice for those needs.
[2:26:44] For example, transportation
funding is a is a big one because the Twin
[2:26:49] Cities metro area could easily swallow up
all the transportation funding.
[2:26:53] I think about more recent efforts
[2:26:56] and I think about, EMS,
all the, issues with the EMS.
[2:27:00] They are the voice for that.
[2:27:02] They, represent greater
Minnesota cities concerns.
[2:27:07] The only real voice.
[2:27:11] And because they represent
little over 100 cities
[2:27:14] outside the metro area,
[2:27:18] they have sway with legislators.
[2:27:20] Thank you.
[2:27:24] Questions?
[2:27:24] Comments?
[2:27:27] Mayor.
[2:27:29] The league offers us not only insurance
[2:27:32] and maybe our administrator
because he's on their board.
[2:27:35] Legal assistance.
[2:27:38] What else do they offer us?
[2:27:41] The city clerk training process.
[2:27:43] The training for all of you as both newly
elected and and senior elected officials.
[2:27:48] There's there's resources
[2:27:51] in almost any area of city government
that they, they provide.
[2:27:54] It's in the coalition.
[2:27:56] Then basically they just lobby.
[2:28:01] That's I wouldn't say they just lobby.
[2:28:04] There's they they, support certain areas
is the way I would, I would put it for.
[2:28:10] So for example, the other thing
that always comes to my mind is,
[2:28:13] thinking about the,
[2:28:17] the first part of this workshop
or talking about wastewater.
[2:28:20] I mean, they are the people that,
[2:28:24] go to bat for the towns like Ozark, us,
where they're going to be for
[2:28:27] to put in 100 and $140 million system
like we were just talking about.
[2:28:33] And they, advocate for those osages,
for example, like for,
[2:28:40] against, the, the permitting process,
[2:28:43] you know, taking things out of the permit
that don't need to be in there.
[2:28:46] I mean, communities for example,
we live on the Mississippi.
[2:28:50] We want to keep it clean, too.
[2:28:51] But if that makes no scientific
[2:28:55] sense,
[2:28:56] to spend these, you know, $130 million,
[2:29:00] somebody has got to have a voice
to push back on that kind of stuff, too.
[2:29:04] I'm really hesitant to say they just lobby
because it's not
[2:29:08] just a lobbying organization.
[2:29:09] They're they do a lot of work
organizing those 100 communities.
[2:29:14] I said, I'll just be blunt about it.
[2:29:16] I'm the only finance guy
that's on the board.
[2:29:19] It's all mayors.
[2:29:20] So council
administrators, things of that type,
[2:29:23] because they're trying to get a voice
for the things that are important
[2:29:26] to greater Minnesota childcare, housing,
all those different programs
[2:29:30] to get them funded.
[2:29:31] The BPI,
which we've used previously to expand
[2:29:36] industrial parks to provide
funding for, numerous different things.
[2:29:40] And I understand, but I'm just looking at
it's more than double
[2:29:44] what the league does.
[2:29:45] And I think the league,
at least what I'm hearing now,
[2:29:48] the league may be more of a benefit
for us.
[2:29:52] I don't know.
[2:29:53] I mean, obviously
everybody has a different view, but
[2:29:55] I think the way I always think about it
[2:29:58] is they're both great organizations
or they're complementary
[2:30:03] because the league simply,
just by its membership
[2:30:08] and through its policy committees, it's
that they,
[2:30:11] they can't take a position on certain
sensitive subjects.
[2:30:14] For example, the big one being LGA,
[2:30:17] you know, after,
[2:30:19] significant number of cities in Minnesota
receive LGA,
[2:30:23] but primarily that core
urban area receives none.
[2:30:28] So they can't advocate for things
where there's controversy
[2:30:32] between greater Minnesota
[2:30:36] and the more, urbanized areas.
[2:30:39] And so they're just a great complement
to each other.
[2:30:43] And they and you can see that, by the way,
they they work together
[2:30:46] collectively
on a number of different issues.
[2:30:49] Thank you.
[2:30:50] So the metro's kind of like us.
[2:30:52] They don't get any LGA speak of
[2:30:55] for I mean generically that's a point.
[2:30:57] I mean, I'm going to come from the
I mean, the cost of the greater
[2:31:01] Minnesota cities.
[2:31:01] And I've had the privilege
of attending both conferences
[2:31:05] and, quite frankly, they're very similar.
[2:31:09] And I enjoy going to both of them.
[2:31:12] But, this seems like a pretty high cost
[2:31:16] to some me and 1 or 2 other council people
[2:31:19] to a, a conference for a couple of days.
[2:31:22] Other than that, I don't, I don't,
[2:31:27] I'm not involved with them at all.
[2:31:28] So, I mean, I do enjoy going to the lake,
[2:31:31] Minnesota cities and a lot of times
the subject matter is the same.
[2:31:35] You know,
whether it's a daycare issues or what
[2:31:38] have you that we, you know,
or cannabis or, or what have you.
[2:31:41] So I mean, I would be okay
if we didn't continue
[2:31:46] with our, membership, but the coalition
of Greater Minnesota Cities,
[2:31:50] and to me, I don't, you know, the,
[2:31:55] coalition of utility cities,
I don't know,
[2:31:58] are they going to do anything to help us
with,
[2:32:04] I mean, I'm not sure how they can help
[2:32:06] Red Wing, to the tune of $51,000.
[2:32:09] Yeah. So what would they do?
[2:32:13] And this is a part of how they're due
schedule to set up their deuce schedule.
[2:32:18] Set up a how much tax capacity
those, baseload plants have.
[2:32:23] And in your community, Red Wing has
the highest basal value of any community.
[2:32:28] So we pay the most in the state. Yeah.
[2:32:30] So we pay more
than the other seven members.
[2:32:34] They I just think about recently,
[2:32:38] like setting up the Office
of Energy Transition, which is really,
[2:32:42] helped us start
[2:32:45] to develop a strategy for how to address,
[2:32:48] when these baseload plants close ours
will close them at some point in time.
[2:32:53] The Community Energy Transition
Grant program was a direct
[2:32:56] result of efforts in, I want to say,
2020 or 2021 from this group.
[2:33:02] We've recently received
$1 million grant out of that program.
[2:33:06] And there's also this,
[2:33:09] electric generation transition
aid that's set up,
[2:33:14] as a direct result of the coalition,
the utility cities.
[2:33:18] It's something out in our future.
[2:33:19] So it's not something bright,
shiny and, oh, in front of you now.
[2:33:22] But if the plant for
some reason closed tomorrow,
[2:33:27] that program is going to pay us
[2:33:29] 100% of what the utility paid us
this year, and it's going to pay us
[2:33:34] 95% the 90 than the 85 than 80
[2:33:37] rate us provides us a runway.
[2:33:39] And it's the nature of the coalition
utility cities is
[2:33:44] you don't necessarily
see this immediate result,
[2:33:47] but the long term
benefit of the programing
[2:33:53] and what we're trying to do
is of vital importance,
[2:33:56] not only this community,
but all those other communities
[2:33:58] that have these baseload plants
that need to address these transitions.
[2:34:02] But Marshall, would we still get that
if we weren't paying $51,000 next year?
[2:34:07] I doubt it, no,
I would say you weren't because
[2:34:11] pretty been established plug or I'm sorry,
is that already been established?
[2:34:16] The transition.
[2:34:18] Yeah.
[2:34:19] The the that electric generation
transition aid program
[2:34:23] has been established. Okay.
[2:34:25] But Neil,
[2:34:26] I think you'll learn really quickly
is what the what the legislature give it.
[2:34:29] They can take it away.
[2:34:31] So there's always going to be that need
pressing need to have a voice up there
[2:34:35] to continue to keep these programs
in place or to get them funded.
[2:34:39] I guess where I'm coming from is
[2:34:42] this is running
[2:34:43] us, and there's what,
five members in this organization
[2:34:46] say there's seven,
seven, 7 or 8 communities.
[2:34:50] Okay.
[2:34:53] It, seven, including seven,
including Red wing right now.
[2:34:57] Yeah. That's right, 1000 a year.
[2:35:00] And plant is up for a renewal to 54.
[2:35:05] We're looking at the shy of a million
and a half dollars in just membership
[2:35:09] to be part of that group at 51,000 a year
[2:35:11] for the next 26, eight years, or whatever
it is,
[2:35:16] it's going to run us about a million
and a half dollars.
[2:35:17] Really?
[2:35:18] Yeah.
[2:35:18] I mean, I can't I'm not
I don't have a crystal ball.
[2:35:21] I can't tell you what the issues
are going to be, because the fees
[2:35:26] that you have to remember
the are only point out that
[2:35:32] the dues are a reflection
of what the action plan is like.
[2:35:35] What do we need to get accomplished.
[2:35:36] So those have been higher
and in recent years,
[2:35:40] and they have in the past
because we've got we need a lot more,
[2:35:44] traction, a lot more hours,
a lot more work
[2:35:49] to not only protect these programs,
but to get them established.
[2:35:52] So is 50,000 normal?
[2:35:55] It's a no.
[2:35:56] But I'm not going to tell you
that it's in a typical year.
[2:36:00] It's the League of Minnesota cities
that, you know, basically 18,000.
[2:36:04] It is more expensive than that.
[2:36:06] And about three times,
what is the difference
[2:36:09] between the coalition of utility cities
and the nuclear waste or energy coalition?
[2:36:13] The nuclear waste strategy Coalition
is the only municipal member of it.
[2:36:19] But it's,
[2:36:21] it includes folks like Xcel.
[2:36:25] Atomic Energy,
[2:36:28] and those other huge,
large industrial players
[2:36:33] that, like us, have a concern about what's
going to happen once that nuclear fuel.
[2:36:37] So it's, a quick avenue to, to learn
what's going on.
[2:36:42] You know, that side of the industry,
what's going on at the NRC,
[2:36:45] what's going on at Congress
related to, spent nuclear
[2:36:50] fuel and conceivably,
its ultimate disposal.
[2:36:54] So that's what that basically is.
[2:36:56] Any other comments, questions?
[2:37:02] I'm not sure how
we want to tackle this one.
[2:37:04] Maybe.
[2:37:04] Is it okay, mayor if I start on that side
again, if anyone's interested in kind of
[2:37:10] taking away or a membership,
[2:37:13] I don't know if that's probably not
the right wording, but
[2:37:16] the,
[2:37:19] coalition of utility cities, it seems that
[2:37:24] the plant's going to be operational
till 2054,
[2:37:28] and we're paying the most
just because it's based on some
[2:37:33] who generates the most doesn't mean
we get more out of it.
[2:37:37] I would I would be fine
if we weren't a member of that
[2:37:42] and the coalition of Greater Minnesota
Cities.
[2:37:44] I went to that, meeting with,
[2:37:48] our council president,
[2:37:49] and it was a couple of hours in
and we go to our legislators
[2:37:53] and, you know, lobby for our legislators,
which we can do at any time.
[2:37:57] I'm open on that. I just
[2:37:59] I don't see where
we're getting a bigger benefit from that
[2:38:03] than we would
from the League of Minnesota.
[2:38:04] Cities.
[2:38:09] As I'm looking over the,
[2:38:12] the report here, I
[2:38:14] notice on the Coalition of Utility cities,
[2:38:17] the last line of recent accomplishments,
the city of Red Wing recently received
[2:38:22] $1 million award.
[2:38:26] As a direct result of being a member
[2:38:28] of the Coalition of Utility Cities.
[2:38:34] So I'm I'm struggling
[2:38:36] to kind of figure out.
[2:38:37] If we got $1 million.
[2:38:41] So we kick them to the curb.
[2:38:43] I mean, I, I don't I'm,
[2:38:46] you know, I'm just saying it
like in the common vernacular,
[2:38:49] but I think, I haven't given enough
thought or consideration to any of these.
[2:38:55] So at this point, I'm not willing to say,
let's don't do any of them.
[2:38:58] I really appreciate the regular
and consistent communication
[2:39:02] we get from the Coalition of Greater
Minnesota Cities.
[2:39:05] I've done some of the things
that they have sponsored, including the,
[2:39:08] the housing summit that I went to
in Rochester, which was really helpful.
[2:39:13] And I really appreciate and learned
so much from that investment of my time
[2:39:17] and going down there.
[2:39:18] So I think they offer some unique things
that aren't.
[2:39:21] So, that and they're thinking about
greater Minnesota cities
[2:39:27] more because
[2:39:29] our concerns a lot of times are different
than the metro.
[2:39:32] And, and I think I heard
Marshall say the words like
[2:39:35] sometimes are those funds
will get gobbled up by the metro.
[2:39:38] And so we do need advocates
that are doing that.
[2:39:42] So I'm not in a position to say that
I think that this one should go
[2:39:46] or this one should stay.
[2:39:47] I haven't given enough thought,
but I'm struck by the million dollars
[2:39:51] that we got as a direct result
of being on the utilities city.
[2:39:55] So I'm going to say
[2:39:57] I'm going to leave it just as it is.
[2:40:02] Any thoughts? Kim.
[2:40:03] All right.
[2:40:04] Having been here the longest of everyone,
[2:40:07] this,
I see the benefits of each one of them.
[2:40:10] Some of them are more in one year
than the next.
[2:40:13] There is a definite difference
between the League of Minnesota cities
[2:40:17] and the Coalition of Greater
Minnesota cities
[2:40:19] and what they bring to offer
and who they represent and how they do it.
[2:40:25] But the
[2:40:25] only one which is the most reasonable one
we have, that overlaps
[2:40:29] in many areas is the Southeast Minnesota
League of Municipalities.
[2:40:33] But it's 50 bucks.
[2:40:35] So why would you stay a member?
[2:40:39] And I'm not saying that
[2:40:41] because I'm currently the president.
[2:40:46] That's,
[2:40:49] we were going to drop one.
[2:40:50] That would be the one I would say to drop,
but it doesn't cost us anything.
[2:40:54] Hardly. For what they do.
[2:40:55] And they have done,
some good things in the last few years
[2:40:59] with, EMS and also, waste.
[2:41:07] Utility, training
that they're getting set up.
[2:41:10] And so.
[2:41:15] Those I think are important to our city.
[2:41:17] All of them represent a different aspect.
[2:41:22] Even though they do overlap
a little bit, they have,
[2:41:26] enough uniqueness that
[2:41:28] I would stay in,
[2:41:33] I think the one I,
[2:41:36] I question
is coalition of utilities, cities.
[2:41:41] I don't know
[2:41:44] that there's that much value added.
[2:41:46] Particularly since their license is gone,
it's going to be renewed.
[2:41:50] So, that would be
if we're going to eliminate one,
[2:41:54] that would be the one I would eliminate.
[2:42:00] I guess I'll go next.
[2:42:02] I guess that's for we've done.
[2:42:03] I just say again,
it's shocking to know that we spent over
[2:42:06] $100,000 on senior memberships
when we could be doing that,
[2:42:10] and in my eyes, fire greater things,
maybe right here in Red wing.
[2:42:14] And so, I mean, I again, I know that
they're doing really good things.
[2:42:18] I gone to a lot of them,
but I really would like us to see again
[2:42:21] with the long term things
we have going on the wastewater plant.
[2:42:24] I think some people want to that
law enforcement center discussion today.
[2:42:28] I really worry about the budget
being at a right size level.
[2:42:31] And so I honestly would like us
to consider getting rid of the coalition
[2:42:36] and the coalition of utility studies
and see what that would mean.
[2:42:40] And had that be a proposal,
[2:42:41] possibly that still this year, I just
I see a lot of overlap.
[2:42:46] And, I think Excel is going to be
where it's at for a while.
[2:42:50] And I just would like to see
what 1 or 2 years of that savings
[2:42:53] would bring.
[2:42:57] Yeah.
[2:42:58] I'm kind of, along the same lines.
[2:43:00] I mean, I,
I had no concerns about the coalition
[2:43:05] of greater Minnesota cities
when I attended.
[2:43:06] I just think that it's a lot of money.
[2:43:09] For what?
[2:43:10] I can see. Bring them.
[2:43:11] I don't see where there's $1 million.
[2:43:14] It wasn't it.
[2:43:15] I didn't see it in my packet anyway.
[2:43:17] Last night.
[2:43:18] Are you familiar with that?
[2:43:20] Page ten.
[2:43:22] Page ten.
[2:43:24] What did we get $1 million for?
[2:43:26] That's what,
Marshall was referring to. The,
[2:43:30] in 2020 or 2021, they
[2:43:32] fund, established the,
energy transition.
[2:43:36] And yes,
Monticello got some initial grants.
[2:43:39] And we finally, were asked to apply
[2:43:42] and get that grant in 2024.
[2:43:45] And that's the beginnings of that's
a coalition use utility cities, right?
[2:43:49] They were instrumental
in setting up the program
[2:43:51] and then the legislature,
funded the program in 2022 or 2023.
[2:43:56] And then we got the grant in 2024.
[2:43:58] So it's it's all tied into
[2:44:02] what the what
the coalition of utility cities
[2:44:05] lobbying for back into the ability
is not greater Minnesota cities.
[2:44:09] Correct? Correct.
[2:44:10] Okay. Yeah.
[2:44:12] And I think you mentioned Vicki
[2:44:14] the coalition of Greater Minnesota cities
[2:44:18] when you made that statement.
[2:44:20] No, I said the Coalition of Utilities
and Utilities.
[2:44:23] Okay. Then I misunderstood. I apologize.
[2:44:25] So, I mean, I could I could see us
[2:44:28] saving the almost $37,000,
[2:44:33] at this point, and I did.
[2:44:39] I mean, I struggle, I struggle
[2:44:40] with because I think,
I think the, the cost for the coalition
[2:44:45] of utility cities
is I mean, that's going to come every year
[2:44:49] and we're going to have a plant
for utility
[2:44:53] for to 2050 for.
[2:44:56] So the community is going to spend
a lot of money on a membership
[2:45:00] that for the most part,
I don't know what else they can do.
[2:45:04] I mean is, unless somebody can answer that
question, where do we get
[2:45:07] $51,000 rather than benefit,
other than, yeah, I'm good.
[2:45:11] If you give me two seconds, I'm
[2:45:12] glad you did, because I feel like
I owe the community of biology because
[2:45:17] what the coalition of utility cities does
[2:45:20] is protects
the tax base that currently exists.
[2:45:23] Yes, the plant will be there
until the end of license.
[2:45:26] What will the taxable value,
what taxes roll up will actually
[2:45:30] come to the community?
[2:45:33] That's to be determined.
[2:45:34] The the Coalition to Utility Cities
is that voice that pushes back
[2:45:38] against legislative or agency actions
or anything else
[2:45:41] that affects the utility valuations.
[2:45:45] Hence the taxes that community receives.
[2:45:47] And just to live in theaters for 25 years,
there have been,
[2:45:51] so many instances where it going.
[2:45:57] The coalition
utility says because of the way
[2:45:59] its membership is constituted,
has been able to push back
[2:46:03] and get legislation either
changed, redirected, have ANC efforts
[2:46:09] reviewed to protect the tax base
that we have.
[2:46:13] Just keep saying this.
[2:46:14] And I apologize,
but if l Excel has a sniffle
[2:46:19] for laying in bed with pneumonia,
the implication
[2:46:23] of a small change on utility
value has immense ripple
[2:46:27] effects across this entire community,
because they are such a huge part
[2:46:31] of our tax base, but basically
[2:46:34] 50, 45 to 40% of our tax base.
[2:46:37] And they have a very
[2:46:39] well-respected,
[2:46:41] business purpose of having their taxes
reduced.
[2:46:43] It's something they do
each and every year.
[2:46:47] This is kind of your,
[2:46:51] this, membership
[2:46:54] really is an investment in maintaining
keeping that tax base.
[2:47:00] Can I ask a follow?
[2:47:01] So does Goodhue County and the school
[2:47:03] district pay it all for that because it
obviously affects on the tax impact?
[2:47:07] No, they do not because it's
a coalition of utilities cities and the in
[2:47:12] the question comes up because it's come up
before we've talked about it
[2:47:18] is do we offer
[2:47:20] do we make the membership broader.
[2:47:23] But then the cities lose control
over their specific issues,
[2:47:28] or they get watered down
because the counties come in
[2:47:30] and they want to just
they tend to want to take over everything.
[2:47:34] And the school
district has a different set of,
[2:47:37] of, concerns, obviously,
because they're on the per pupil formula.
[2:47:42] So it's just a we've talked about it,
but we have expanded that membership.
[2:47:47] Okay.
[2:47:49] Ron, you want to comment,
[2:47:52] as far as utility cities goes,
I think, you know,
[2:47:54] maybe we should wait until we have,
you know, a firm answer that.
[2:47:58] Yes, they're going to re license.
[2:48:00] They're actually going to go through
because they have not received their NRC
[2:48:04] yet. They also, you know, once
you get the NRC approval,
[2:48:07] it's going to come back to, to excel,
you know, and here's the here's
[2:48:10] what we have to do to operate
for those additional 20 years.
[2:48:14] Then they have to go to the Public
Utilities Commission
[2:48:17] and say, okay, here's
what it's going to cost us.
[2:48:20] Are you going to go,
let us have rate return,
[2:48:23] in order to and make a profit on this.
[2:48:25] And if they can't make a profit, you know,
[2:48:28] they would maybe would say no.
[2:48:30] So the one thing
the issue I have with, with
[2:48:34] this is I'm a live within your means guy.
[2:48:37] So the way I look at Red Wing
and the way Red Wing
[2:48:40] has spent money over the past,
the money coming from the nuclear plant,
[2:48:44] we've installed a lot more infrastructure
and parks and trails and everything else
[2:48:50] that other cities our size
can't because they're not a utility city.
[2:48:56] Right? So what we're asking
is where we want to go.
[2:48:58] We want to continue to have
a spending binge for 20 more years.
[2:49:02] And then once the plant's done
and we know it's going to be done,
[2:49:05] then we want somebody to wean us off.
[2:49:07] And I just have a hard time with that.
[2:49:09] I think
[2:49:09] you should take care of your own city
and not have everybody else in the state
[2:49:13] having to, to wean you off.
[2:49:14] So but I think maybe it's premature to,
to say
[2:49:18] get rid of that one just until we have,
you know, the think is dry
[2:49:21] and that the things with relicensing.
[2:49:26] And as far as the
[2:49:27] coalition of greater Minnesota cities, I'm
not sure if of almost $37,000 a year.
[2:49:32] I mean, obviously the biggest one for me
is I think of the EMS stuff,
[2:49:36] you know, if they're able to do anything
to help us start plugging the holes in
[2:49:40] or getting this service,
you know, our ambulance service,
[2:49:44] but I don't I'm not sure
if you know that $37,000 would be
[2:49:48] better invested just using in our current
ambulance service.
[2:49:51] So I'll go with whatever
everybody else wants to do with that one.
[2:49:56] I think the League of Minnesota Cities
is is a pretty big advocate for EMS,
[2:50:00] certainly not.
[2:50:03] Yeah. Please do.
[2:50:05] Yeah. Thank you.
[2:50:05] So not necessarily
because not all cities have an ambulance.
[2:50:09] And the there is a Minnesota
Ambulance Association.
[2:50:12] But the president of that is a private
or hospital based ambulance.
[2:50:16] So really the only voice
we have inside of that for the legislation
[2:50:21] for our community in our towns
is the greater Minnesota cities. So.
[2:50:31] All right.
[2:50:32] I think we heard from everybody.
[2:50:33] Do you want to
I know we're getting we're at 759.
[2:50:36] Not that we can finish by eight,
but do we want to kind of give
[2:50:38] a final wrap up again
on Levy current status I know Chris,
[2:50:43] I don't know if you want to
[2:50:44] do this after that,
but just kind of we did have maybe a plan
[2:50:47] for kind of taking items
we talked about tonight,
[2:50:50] and then how could we bring that
to a next meeting
[2:50:52] so we can get again,
kind of another update on the budget.
[2:50:54] Do you want to talk about that first
or should we go to the levy.
[2:50:56] Let's go to the stuff okay.
[2:50:58] Current status.
[2:51:02] All right.
[2:51:02] So after a couple of hours here,
[2:51:07] Where we're at currently,
[2:51:10] we're in we're in very good shape
[2:51:12] with where you wanted us to be
[2:51:16] when we started with this back in June.
[2:51:19] And then throughout this process
in August and in September.
[2:51:23] Sorry, I don't have my mic on.
[2:51:25] So coming into tonight
with all those administrative changes
[2:51:29] and other things, factored in,
[2:51:32] we sat at a 3.25% levy increase.
[2:51:36] One thing that is not shown here is
we were also able
[2:51:39] to reduce the fund balance draw
to just below $1 million.
[2:51:45] So a reduction to the good on
[2:51:50] I think the two main key metrics
[2:51:52] that you all have decisions to make on,
[2:51:56] with a few additional things
from tonight,
[2:52:00] I think it's reasonable to say we could
[2:52:04] make a slight reduction
[2:52:06] that you all are comfortable with
to the levy, getting it closer to the 3%,
[2:52:11] and then also reducing that fund balance
to even further.
[2:52:15] The big question would be
[2:52:18] to what degree
[2:52:21] do we want to make
some of those reductions?
[2:52:22] I think the things I was adding up
in my head was,
[2:52:27] reduction of the performance pay.
[2:52:30] We were looking at probably 154,000.
[2:52:33] That's going to be
[2:52:36] now, that's going to be citywide.
[2:52:38] So probably a levy impact of around 100.
[2:52:41] There.
[2:52:45] The reduction of the one position that's
going to be around a 10th of a percent.
[2:52:50] So the real question is to
what degree do you want us to
[2:52:54] further
draw down the levy from the 3 to 5%
[2:52:57] we came into the
night with, and then the rest
[2:53:01] being spent on the fund
[2:53:02] balance towards the really big,
[2:53:05] big question.
[2:53:06] I think we would have.
[2:53:09] So you could provide general responses
to that right now,
[2:53:12] but it actually is a perfect segway
to what we talked about earlier today.
[2:53:15] We could so we've got it.
[2:53:18] I don't know if the actual schedule it's
in, the actual staff report,
[2:53:20] the remaining two meetings are the, the,
[2:53:25] special meeting, truth and taxation
meeting on December 1st
[2:53:29] and the City Council regular meeting,
the adoption of the levy on December 8th.
[2:53:34] We do have,
[2:53:36] obviously council meeting next Monday
and then following,
[2:53:38] second meeting in November
is the 24th 24. Yes.
[2:53:44] So I don't think we'd have,
an easy turnaround for next Monday.
[2:53:49] Maybe it could be,
[2:53:50] but we could kind of recalculate
and look at the impacts of these
[2:53:54] for either next Monday
or for sure by the 24th,
[2:53:58] and bring back not the entire budget,
but just some.
[2:54:02] Here's where we're at.
[2:54:04] Update if you
if you wanted to see that rather than
[2:54:09] just crossing your fingers and
waiting for the truth and taxation meeting
[2:54:13] so I mean,
I think it'd be really appropriate
[2:54:15] to have something on the 24th
[2:54:17] so that we're going into the December
meeting with a pretty,
[2:54:20] you know, again, confident,
[2:54:23] clear, you know, idea
on what the budget's going to look like.
[2:54:26] So I know I want that,
but what what do others think.
[2:54:29] What what kind of do people need I,
I want that on the 24th.
[2:54:35] I have a question
[2:54:37] on the, firefighters position.
[2:54:40] Is it 1 or 2?
[2:54:43] Is that decided on? Okay.
[2:54:45] Thank you.
[2:54:49] Yes, please.
[2:54:50] Any update that we can get is always
helpful whenever, whenever it's available.
[2:54:55] I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
[2:54:58] Other comments or questions
I'll say an update on like where we're at
[2:55:02] with the levy, with the reductions
that were brought forth tonight.
[2:55:06] And then you know, you're talking about
like fund balance.
[2:55:08] Now draw and fund balance down so much.
[2:55:10] So maybe some information on,
[2:55:13] you know,
[2:55:14] if we bring it down with just a balance
and and keep our the fund balance
[2:55:18] the way it is, you know
and what we get down
[2:55:21] to with the levy and then we can go
from there to see, okay.
[2:55:24] If we, we didn't do as much fund balance
[2:55:27] to bring it down,
you know, to get it back to.
[2:55:30] Yeah.
I understand what you're saying. Yeah.
[2:55:32] That's fair.
[2:55:33] It's almost on like page 11 where you have
all the different proposals and budget.
[2:55:37] If we could have another little bracket
with, like, you know, fund balance draw
[2:55:41] or something would be really helpful.
[2:55:42] So yeah,
[2:55:44] I'll read anything else,
any other comments
[2:55:46] or we'll move to public comment.
[2:55:49] Okay. Hearing none here.
[2:55:51] I'll move on to number three. Again.
[2:55:53] We have public comment this evening.
[2:55:54] Is there anyone that would like
to provide public comment?
[2:55:59] A second time?
[2:56:00] Is there anyone that would like to do
public comment?
[2:56:03] I can hear some rattling.
[2:56:05] Yeah.
[2:56:06] Last time.
[2:56:07] Is there anyone in the chamber
that would like to do public comment?
[2:56:10] Seeing none, I will adjourn us. Thank you.