Okay, today is Monday, December 1st, 7 p.m. Second floor conference room. This is the city of Brandon's personnel finance committee meeting. And we'll call it to order. Start with introductions. >> Kelly Bland, Brandon, city council, ward. Nick Royal, city administrator. >> John Davis, police chief.
>> Connie Milman, finance director. >> Gay Johnson, chair of the committee. We have four items in front of us. The first of which is an updated animal control contract. >> [cough] >> Connie or John? >> Nick, >> I can start with John can fill in the gaps. I'll start it though. Um, city's
current animal control contract expires at the end of the year. U, what you see before you tonight is a proposed three-year contract would be for 26, 27, and 28. Um, John did a great job working with Mike O'Brien to negotiate a lot of issues. Mike was asking kind of for the
moon initially. Um, John did a great job negotiating a lot of these finer points with him. Uh so this agreement that you're seeing has been reviewed and approved by the police chief and our city attorney. So the we would recommend a motion move to move to approve a threeear animal control with Lakes Area
Animal Control. You can see the dollar amounts are uh are in there. In 25, just for reference, 25 it was 3263. 26 it's about 3361, then 3462, then 3567.
And that's per month. Just to give you some context what currently is and what the proposal is for the next three years. Scope of services are all listed and I can try to answer any questions. John did most of the negotiating for this, but we'd be happy to answer any of your questions. >> Yeah. seem likely reasonable cost
increases. I think Mike does a good job. He's professional every time we get to host him in a council meeting, which luckily isn't too often. >> Those are some of the most difficult, right, that the answer, but I have no
questions and I move to approve. >> Second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> That motion carries. >> Next up is an approve updated misdemeanor prosecution services. Nick. >> All right. This is uh similar in some ways to the last one. Our misdemeanor
prosecution agreement with Severson Porter ends at the end of the year. Um they have been good. They they have only increased their cost of the contract for the CPI for the Midwest region. It does have a floor and a ceiling. So there's a
minimum of 1% increase with a ceiling of 3% increase every year. Um just to provide some context, in 23 it was 220 and there was a 3% CPI. was 2266 and 2425 was a 2.9% CPI for 233 and some
change and in 2026 um we're anticipating a 2.7% CPI for a total of 237583 27 and 28 obviously are they don't have the numbers for those yet because it'll be based off of CPI for the Midwest region but this is for a three-year
contract from 1 January 26 to 31 December 28 um this is going to be contingent if the council approves this tonight. This is contingent upon a agreed upon joint services agreement with Baxter and Niswah. I gave their city administrator
and Baxter. I don't think they have a city administrator right now, but Todd Shamansky is the police chief there. I sent it to Todd. So, they're reviewing this right now, but this would be contingent to a subsequent agreement between us and Mr. Cities. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have.
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, the only only thing we see the cost but there's usually we usually get to see revenues as well. >> So this is no longer based on revenues. >> I understand that but we usually get to we do get revenue from this community prosecution. Correct. >> It comes from the state court system. So
it's not really related. We talked about this one time if it was related to the number of court prosecution and super porter said it's really not. >> It's not but it would be interesting. >> It'd be interesting to see it. >> Yeah. because and and it would be interesting and I know we don't have an agreement in place right now with Baxter
and Niswah but it'd be interesting to see >> the percentage >> the percentage like how much how many levy dollars are we putting towards this because we can offset with our average >> and that'll come off >> I think that will be on the next agenda honestly that we can share that at the
next meeting >> be interesting >> I move to approve >> okay second all in favor say I that motion carries let's move to the next item which is the non-working funds budgets. Take it away. >> So, in addition to the working funds, which are the general public safety,
parks and streets, the council has historically adopted budgets for other funds, transit, library, recycling, city parking lots, permanent improvement, mayor, contingency, EDA, and then the enterprise funds of sanitary storm. Included in the packet are the current proposed budgets for all those funds
other than the library and EDA. the EDA's meeting on December 4th and the 2026 budget is on the agenda and the library fund will not be adopted adopted until the first meeting in January as the next library board meeting is December 17th. I think with the change over in the librarian it kind of slipped
through the cracks to be perfectly honest with you. So um and it won't be an issue adopting the library the first meeting of January. I think we've done that before. Um, so this item is on the agenda for council review and discussion of the b of the budgets prior to their potential adoption of the December 15th
council meeting. So the recommended action is just to review and discuss the proposed budgets as presented and I can answer any questions. >> I have no question. >> Neither do I. So this you don't want an approval? >> No, I think that we can approve all the
budgets at the next council meeting unless you want to adopt these. Right now it's up to you. >> No, we can adopt it all as one. Okay, then that'll bring us to the last item in discussion of the 2026 operating budget and levy. >> All right, so the city council set the
preliminary levy at 7,666,13, which is an 8% increase over the 2025 levy and the preliminary levy is what's used to send out the preliminary tax statements to residents in November. As you know, the final levy and budget for the general fund need to be set by December 31st. The final levy can be lower but not higher than the
preliminary levy. Um staff gave an update at the last council meeting and the levy was 7 uh or 8.17% increase over the 2025 levy. Staff noted the changes in the budget since that time in the agenda request as a result of the updates. The levy for 2026 could
be 7,434,915 or 7.74% increase. >> 4.74 >> 4.74 7.74. >> Yeah. I transpose a number of my worst nightmare sorry 4.74% increase over the
levy which is 336,74 >> you know she is a little bit over the 2025 levy as shown on the levy recap the preliminary levy has been lowered by approximately $231,000 and of this 57%
over 57% of the amount is a result of the city's favorable workers comp renewal rates assumed changes to the general liability insurance and changes in the employee health insurance elections for 2026. For the council's direction, um the uh
council president, PNF chair, city administrator and finance director met on Thursday, November 20th. We went over the changes mentioned in the agenda request that were made at that time. Um the council president and PNF chair al also recommended the following items be made to the proposed capital budget.
move the $200,000 city hall bathroom remodel from 26 to 27 and remove the $784,000 that was in the budget for the public works garage. Um, this item was from the 2018 2019 study that was done by WSN >> and never adopted by the council to be
implemented. >> True. Staff detailed what was involved in the project in the agenda request and it would be staff's recommendation to reinstate the $784,000 for the public works garage. As a side note, there's nothing in the 2026 budget
for the potential sale of Gustoson Park as one, the council has not made a decision, and two, it is unlikely that any proceeds from any potential sale would be received in 26. Several documents were included in the packet for council review. It was an overview for general fun budgets which
includes parks and this was a levy of 7,435,323 the 2026 capital budget which excludes the 784,000 for the public works garage but it does include parks and then an overview of the parks budget. Um, the budget public hearing is
scheduled for Monday, December 8th at 6 pm. The reason for the bud budget public hearing is to allow citizens to learn about the city's budget and levy and a chance for citizens to provide input. If the city council would like to have board discussion on the budget levy, staff can add another item agenda item to the December 8th meeting for
additional council discussion. Another option would be to set a special a separate meeting. Staff is really looking for three recommendations tonight. um discussion on the $784,000 for the public works garage. Um there's no
effect on the overall levy. Um the amount to be used at the public hearing budget public hearing and then direct staff to use that same amount in the resolution to be presented at the December 15th meeting to set the 2026 levy. And this is where I realized I made a typo. This is not 4,735,000.
That should be 7,435,000. Again, that is my nightmare. [clears throat] Um, the amount of the levy for the public hearing in the resolution can be 8% or below. The lowest staff would recommend the levy for 2026 would be the 7,435,323, which is a $4.75%
increase or $337163 over $337,163 over the 2025 budget. As a side note with the $214,000 increase to the airport levy, the levy increase is about $123,000 for
operations and other levies. So again, we're looking at discussion of the public works garage and then the amount used for the public hearing and want to put in the resolution for December 15th. So, Kelly, the reason Mike and I decided to pull the public works garage out for now is that we
don't think it would be wise to do a million-doll project on a garage when we're in the middle of a discussion of how that department is going to be organized >> for the next 50 years. So, if we need a maybe bigger project, we just roll that in when we identify what public works is going to look.
>> That makes perfect. It's just like the annex. >> And and Connie is partially correct when she says spending a million dollars doesn't affect the budget. It doesn't affect the levy in 2025 >> 26. But over the long term, if you spend
a million dollars, that's a million you don't have that needs out of levy dollars that you need to make up. >> Unless you have interest. >> Yeah. So, I think we should still not have the 784 and wait and see what the public works. As soon as we authorize it, they they let the contract. I've
seen it a thousand times, haven't we? >> My question is where should we put it? Should we just take it out completely? Should we move it to 28, 29, 2030 or just take it out completely? What would you propose? You know, like we move the bathrooms from one year to the next, thinking if we're doing something with the annex,
maybe we can say having the same contractor. >> What should we do with the public works garage? Move it to 29. >> I think the public work garage is a valid project. understanding of how the procedurally,
you know, we're going to have our departments makes sense. But I I think we I would like to think there's efficiencies that could be had and the configuration of the public works garage [snorts] might might be impacted by that. But I I would think I I would just
assume keep it somewhere like if it's next year and it has to be moved again, so be it. >> Yeah. And that's why I wouldn't move it next year just to risk the the WSM presentation before us that they have all the 30% plans done and let's go.
>> It happens. It happens, Connie. So, let's just move it to 28 or 29 and we can move it back up when we identify what it needs to >> comment. My question >> Okay. >> And then >> that's what I would do. And then it still shows up there. You know, it's
like the Gregory Park fountain. It's in the parks budget somewhere. >> We just don't know where >> because it's flex budget. >> Um, what would you use for the levy for the budget public hearing? And
therefore, I assume that this would be the amount that we would put in the resolution. [snorts] >> I'd like the 475. I like the 475. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> You don't want to go to 5G? >> No, I kind of like the 475.
All right. 475 it is. Do you feel that we need to have another council meeting to discuss this or we feel pretty comfortable with this and we're ready to move forward? >> I'm comfortable. I don't think we need a motion out of this committee asking for another meeting but the discussion upstairs could could move in that
direction. Yeah. >> I agree with that. >> That gives me direction. Thank you very much. >> So Kelly motion to present a 2026 levy of with a 4.75 increase. So moved >> at $7,435
$323. >> So moved, seconded, and to move the 784,000 back to 2028. >> Yes. Perfect. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> That motion carries.
>> Move to >> second. All in favor say I. >> I.