Council's Monday, December 8th, 2025, 6:00 p.m. Uh, Tony, please call the role. >> Jagger, >> here. >> Ericson, >> yes. >> Evans, yes. >> Chzach, yes. >> Johnson, >> here. >> Stunic OD here. >> Here. All right. Next up, we have number three. This is budget, the budget public
hearing and presentation. And I believe this is for Connie Hillman, our finance director. She gets to go through the presentation that we all love. Go ahead, Connie. Take it away. >> So, the purpose of tonight's meeting is
to discuss the city of Briner's 2026 budget and levy and to allow for public input. This is not the meeting to discuss the valuation that has been placed on your property. Those meetings are held in May at the board of equalization. However, questions regarding the property valuation and
classification can be directed to the land services department at the county and their number is 21882410. The Minnesota property tax system is very complex. So this is a simplified version of it. It all starts with the estimated market value for Crowing County. That is determined by the
assessor's office. A statutory formula is then applied based on how the property is classified and that equals a tax capacity of the city. The t the city council sets its its city's levy and this is also the city's
income or the revenue. The city's levy is divided by the total tax capacity of the city which equates the city's tax rate and the tax rate is then applied to each of the parcels to determine the property owner's tax bill.
It is important to note in Minnesota that taxi jurisdictions set the levy in dollars. They do not set the tax rate. Your property value determines your proportionate share of the dollars that goes to each jurisdiction. The tax rate is a result of the levy dollar needed and the total tax capacity of each
jurisdiction. So, let's take a look at the city's estimated market value. The estimated market value of your property on January 2nd, 2025 is what is used to calculate the amount you pay for property taxes in 2026. One of the main items that the
assessor's office uses is a sales ratio study, which analyzes sales that took place between the time frame of October 2023 and September of 2024. This study determines the value on January 2nd, 2025 assessment date. In March is when
you get your valuation notices. In May is when the board of equalizations are held. In November, proposed property tax statements are sent out. And December, we have the tax levy hearing, which is where we're at tonight. Your property tax statements will be mailed in March of 2026 and the first
half taxes is due in May and the second half taxes is due by October 15th. This is a comparison of the city's uh city of Briner's total estimated market value for pay year 2025 and 2026. Overall, the estimated market value
increased 1.6% for pay year 2026 over year payear 2025. This chart shows a history of the estimated market values for the city of Brainard. 2023 and 2024 increases were significant. They were double digits at
22.2 and 14.9% respectively. Whereas the 2025 and 2026 increases are a little bit more in line with the other years at 4.1 and 1.6%. Now let's look at the tax capacity of the city.
If we take the total estimated market value and apply the statutory formula based on classification, this equates to an estimated tax capacity of $13,470,83 for the city of Brainard for pay year 2026. This is $174,217
increase in tax capacity. The tax capacity for the city is about 1.1% of the estimated market value. This oops, sorry. This graph is the estimated tax capacity by cal by classification. Starting in 2022 or
2023, we see a shift in the tax burden from commercial industrial properties to the other in residential. Residential property still is the biggest portion of the tax capacity at 61%. So what does an increase in the tax capacity mean? Well, what the city has its levy aka its revenue. And if there's
no change to that levy, you have an increase in the city's tax capacity. You would expect to see a decrease in the city's tax rate. So, we've looked at the estimated market value and the tax capacity of the city. The next thing we want to look at is the city's levy.
The city determines its levy through the budgeting process. We estimate all of the expenditures, personnel costs, supplies, services, debt, capital, and we estimate all of the nonpropy tax revenues, the fines, fees, LGA, and the difference between the two is the levy needed. Per the League of Minnesota
City's handbook, chapter 20, it says that budgeting is basically planning and prioritizing goals in the coming year based on experiences in the past year or years. We'll start by looking at the operating expenditures and personnel services. Personnel services with a budget of
amount of approximately $9.58 million is the largest expense category of the operating expenses. Personnel services has increased about $487,000 over the 2025 adopted budget. The increase is primarily due to contracts that were settled and employees moving
through the city's pay scale. The city council is also budgeting an additional 6 equivalent full-time employee in the working funds. This is a result of integrating the technology departments, all the city departments with the utility department. All union contracts and wages that
affect the levy for 2026 have been set. The 2026 2026 health insurance rate for plans that the majority of employees have increase an average of 3% over the 2025 rates. And the council will be using the one-time public aid that was received in
2023 to fund 33% of a 1.5 police officers in 2026. We'll see this reflected in the use of fund balance later. We're budgeting to have two current open positions and another position that will open in January to be filled in 2026.
And we're budgeting that they will elect the $3,400 family option for health insurance. The city had a very favorable renewal in its workers comp. The rates decreased by 25% plus the city's experience mod went from 89 to 78%.
The budget also includes an estimated cost for the new Minnesota paid family medical leave plan that goes into effect January 1st. We had our services increase just under 130,000 over the 2025 budget.
the we're budgeting to use a third-party contractor for inspections needed for certain building projects that were carried over from 2025 and we will also see this reflected in the use of fund balance later assumed various renewal rates for computer software and added one new software to assist with and to
track data request and assumes the city will continue to lease vehicles and we budgeted vary assumptions for the general insurance that renews in March of 2026. We're budgeting an increase in the amount of aid passed through to the fire relief association. We're budgeting to
codify, which is basically to review and combine the city code in 2026. This is being planned for in the capital fund and we will see the transfers into the general fund later on. And then we reviewed actual performance over the last four to five years and review of actual data through October 2025.
After looking at operating expenses, we need to look at the amount needed to fund capital needs. The capital levy is for all city-owned facilities and equipment needs except for the enterprise funds. The council is holding the capital levy the same as the levy in 2025.
Total capital purchases for 2026 total 6,776,211. And again, this excludes the equipment for the enterprise funds. This is a summary of the capital purchases that are currently being budgeted for in 2026 at the cost of
$6.78 million. The parkboard has requested a $457,386 um funding request in the long-term capital asset maintenance request and this funding will not be spent in 2026, but it'll be used in f future years to
offset cost of projects. You may have noticed that the levy for capital equipment and facilities is 1.18 million. Yet, we're planning on spending 6.78 million in 2026. The goal of the city council is to not have to issue debt for capital and
facilities. However, with the remodel of the fire station 1, debt will need to be issued for the project. The next slide will show a portion of the 30-year capital plan. We're assuming that the capital levy will stay the same over the next 5 years. We have the 1.6 6 uh78
million of proposed capital expenditures for 2026 as well as the future year's budgets. And we have the $457,000 added to the park's long-term capital maintenance plan as well as the future planned amounts. We have included issuing um $5.16
million of bonds for the fire station remodel. That's estimated to be $5.5 million. At this point, with issuing bonds for the fire station remodel, the bottom line shows a positive cash flow over the next five years. The city also needs to levy for debt
service. The city needs to levy for what is needed to make the August 2026 and February 2027 payments. For 2026, the debt levy is the same as it was from 2025 at $765,000. The city also needs to levy for things that are set by the charter or that the
city has to fund. The levy for permanent improvements which is basically for the maintenance of the roads and for the senior center or senior activity green space and community festivals are based on a percentage of the 2025 total levy. The library levy is a 2% increase over
2025 and the EDA board requests the maximum allowed by state statute which would have been about a $36,500 increase but the council has kept decided to keep the EDA levy the same as 2024 and 202425 at $186,812.
The airport commission requested a 2026 appropriation of $215,000 for 2025. If you recall, the council set the airport levy at $1,000 to eliminate the double taxation of the Brainard residence for the airport. The county is going to separate the county's airport
levy out from their general levy for 2026, which in essence eliminates the double taxation. Therefore, the airport levy is an increase of $214,000 for 2026. So when we add all of the budgeted expenditures that are supported by the
levy, the total 2026 budgeted expenditures total 17,272,433. And this is an increase of $829,911 for the from the 2025 budget or 5.05% increase. So now that we have looked at the total
budgeted expenditures, we can now look at the total nonpropy tax revenues. Total budget and nonpropy tax revenues total 9,633,560, which is an estimated increase of about 385,000 compared to the 2025 budget.
The city is budgeting additional $54,000 in building permit revenue in 2026 than budgeted in 2025. We see an increase in grants and aids of over 175,000. We're budgeting an increase in um of $10,974
in local government aid or LGA from the state. We're also budgeting over $45,300 for police state aid and $46,800 in fire state aid. The increases are based on using the amounts received in 2025 for the 2026 budget. And the fire
state aid is passed through the fire relief association as discussed previously. And new for 2026 is a traffic officer safety grant with just over $74,000 increase to the budgeted grants and aids. There's a $142,300
increase in other revenues. This accounts for the increase in interest revenue and the estimated increase in proceeds from the return of lease vehicles in 2026. The city has also changed the calculation for the pilot the payment in lie of taxes from the electric department for 2026. It'll be based on
3% of electric gross sales. The change to the pilot resulted in a $63,900 increase itself over the 2025 budget. Another item to consider when setting the levy is the use of any addition or use of fund balance. 2026 is an election
year. The city budgets $15,000 a year for the elections that are held every other year. Therefore, in 2026, the city will decrease its fund balance by $15,000 to be used in 2026. We also see a use of fund balance in the amount of $101,650
of public safety aid. This is again 33% of 1.5 um police officers and an increase in the budgeted cost for the records management software. The city is also projecting Hughes $86,900 of fund balance. This amount represents what will be paid to the
third party inspector relating to projects that had revenue that was collected in 2025. So, the amount between the budget expenditures and nonpropy tax revenues equals the levy needed. And for 2026, this amount is 7,435,323
and is a 4.75% increase over the 2025 levy. The preliminary levy was adopted in September at 7,666,13. This was an 8% increase over the 2025 levy. And this was used to send out the proposed property tax statements
properties owners just received. The city's final levy set in December can be lower but cannot be higher than the preliminary levy. And since September, line items have been reviewed and initial assumptions have been changed based on additional information received. Each line item has reviews um
based on actual revenue and on average history. And therefore, the final levy could be set at 4.75% increase to cover the budgeted expenditures. This table shows the preliminary levies and the final or proposed in the case of 2026. The city would have liked to avoid
the peaks and valleys in the levy. This table shows that for 10 out of the last 17 years, the council has reduced the final levy set in December from the prelim preliminary levy set in September. This chart also shows that the average increase in the levy over
the last 15 years has been a 4.3% increase each year. a 3.3% increase each year over the last 10 years and a 3.51% increase each year over the last five years. The city has over 80 different funds,
but it does not officially adopt a budget for all the funds. This graph shows the funding sources for all governmental funds that the city adopts a budget for. The city does have two enterprise funds that it officially adopts a budget for, and the information is excluded from this graph.
We have the amount that the city levies which is 30.8% of all revenues budgeted. The next biggest portion is funding comes from intergovernmental revenue at 33.5% of budgeted revenues with the biggest portion being from the state in the form of local government aid. The 2026
certified amount of LGA for the city is 5 bill255,866 and is the $10,974 more than what the city is to receive in 2025. In 2026, we'll have bond proceeds for the fire station remodel at 21.4% of
budgeted revenues. Then we have revenue from charges of service and fines at 5.8. The city received the contribution from the public utilities department at 3.5% of total budgeted revenues. And then we have other taxes, licenses, permits, and miscellaneous such as interest,
assessments, etc., which total 6.3% of total budgeted revenues. It is important to note that 69.2% 2% of budgeted revenues come from sources other than property taxes. Now if we look at the budgeted expenditures, the general fund, public safety and
street funds are what we consider the working funds and activities from these funds are supported by levy which total 56.6% of total budgeted expenditures. Then we have capital at 27.5% which is much higher this year due to the fire station remodel. We have transit at 7.3,
debt service at 3.1, and road at 1.7. And then we have the other programs that are in the charter, green space, senior activities, and community festivals, library, EDA, recycling, and city- owned parking lots at 3.8% of budgeted total expenditures. So now, let's look at the city's tax
rate. With a levy of 4.5 a levy increase of 4.75% increase, the city's estimated tax rate is 55.718%. This is an estimated increase of 1.835% from the 2025 tax levy of 53.883%.
Keep in mind that the preliminary levy was set at an 8% increase and had an estimated tax rate of 57.449%. And this is what was used to send out the proposed tax statements to property owners. Now, let's look at the impact of applying the city's tax rate to the
individual property owner's tax capacity, which determines the property owner's tax bill for 2026. Assuming a residential homestead property had an estimated market value of 150,000 in 2025, the property owner's tax capacity would have been $1,170.
And again, this is determined by taking the estimated market value, applying the homestead exclusion and the statutory percentage, then applying the city's tax rate of 53.883% to the tax capacity. That is, the homeowner would have paid $630 in city taxes in 2025.
The table shows the changes to the city's tax liability for 2026, assuming that there's no change in the value of the property. With a 4.75% increase in the levy, the homeowner would expect to see an increase in the amount due to city taxes of about $21. However, this is not what property
owners are seeing because their estimated market values have changed and the tax levy used for the proposed property tax statements had a levy increase of 8% which is now currently at 4.75%. With the proposed property tax statement, a resident homeowner uh
resident homestead owner who paid $630 in taxes in 2025 would have and had an average increase of 2.5% increase in their estimate value would have saw on the proposed property tax statement about a $69 a year increase in their
city tax liability. With a 4.75% increase in the tax levy, the same home owner who had a 2.9% increase in their estimated market value will probably actually see an increase of about $48 per year in city the city tax liability. So to update the the city
tax liability, we need to take the city tax liability from the proposed tax abatement and subtract 3.0131%. If we take a look at the total tax capacity for residential homeowner, again using the 2.9% increase in asset market value, the total tax liability
for 2026 is estimated to be 1,313 or about $47 a year or 3.71% increase. The proposed property tax statement for 2026 would have shown a 5.37% increase in the total tax liability.
There are two reasons the tax bill can change. One is the change in the tax rate was which is a result of the total levy set by the taxing jurisdiction and the total tax capacity of the jurisdiction and a change in estimated market value. For 2026, the total tax rates are increasing, but the school
referendum which is based on estimated market value did decrease. And so the net change in tax rate would have actually caused the homeowners taxes to decrease by $3 or.24%. 24%. The impact on the estimated market value would increase the homeowner's taxes by
$50 or 3.95%. For this homeowner, the change of the taxing jurisdiction is listed for each and it shows the cities increasing by $47.88. In 2026, for every dollar a residential property owner pays in taxes, 20 cents
goes to Crowing County, two cents go to the other, which is region 5 and the Brainard H. 26 cents to the school district and 52 cents to the city. Now, if we look at the impact for a commercial property owner, assuming a commercial property owner had an
estimated market value of $525,200 in 2025, the property owner's tax capacity in 2025 would have been $9,75854. And that is determined by taking the estimated market value and applying the statutory percentage for a commercial property and then applying the city's
tax rate of 53.883% 883% to the tax capacity, the commercial property owner would have paid about $5,256 in city taxes in 2025. Assuming that there's no change in the value of property, this table shows the estimated change to the city's tax
liability based on various changes to the city levy. With a 4.75% increase in the levy, the commercial property owner would expect to see an increase in city tax li liability about $179 a year. This again assumes that there's no change in the value of the property and we know
this assumption is unlikely as it is not is and it is not what property owners saw on their proposed property tax statements. With the proposed property tax statements, a commercial uh property owner who paid $5,256 in city tax liability in 2025 but had an
average increase of 7.75% is seeing about an $812 a year increase in their city tax liability in their proposed property tax statement. With a 4.75% increase in the levy and an estimated 7.7%
increase in the estimated market value, they could see an actual estimated $630 a year increase in the city's tax liability. And again, to compute the updated tax liability, take the tax liability from the preliminary statement and subtract 3.0131%.
We take a look at the total tax impact for the commercial property owner and using a 7.7% increase in estimated market value. The total tax liability for 2025 would have been $12,126 and the proposed 2026 tax liability
would be $13,265, a $1,139 increase or 9.39%. The proposed property tax statement would have showed a 10.9% increase in total tax liability. Again, there's two reasons. A change in tax rate and change
in estimated market value. For 2026, the total tax rate is up. A change in tax rate would increases property owners taxes by $75 or.26%. An increase in the asset market value also increased the property taxes by $1,64
or 8.77% for a net increase of the $1,139 for this property owner. The increase in the per taxing jurisdiction is listed with the city share being $630 a year increase or 55% of the total increase.
For every dollar a commercial property owner pays in taxes in 2026. 19 cents goes to the general fund, 17 cents to Crowing County, 1 cent for the other, which is region 5 and Brainard H, 19 cents to the school district, and 44 cents to the city.
The final budget and levy is scheduled to be adopted at the December 15th, 2025 council meeting. If it is not, we will have to hold a special council meeting because the final levy and the general fund budget must be adopted by December 31st. And with that, we can take any public
comments. >> Thank you, Connie. Anybody up here have questions for Connie before we start the public hearing? Mr. Chz, Mr. >> President, thank you, Connie. Um, you mentioned the general fund. I believe at the last there was 19%. Is that correct?
>> For a commercial property owner, that's an additional tax >> set by the state that commercial and industrial properties pay. >> That goes to the state general fund. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. And then if I remember correctly in the beginning of this you indicated the city will see a6
increase of full-time employment. >> Yes. >> Okay. So we hired um when we hired we we had two IT people that were full-time 100% to the city and now we have a total technology department of six and some of the director's salary is
allocated to B some of our original two that we had in our IT department are allocated to BPU and then the other four were allocated between the city and the BPU which equates to a6 increase in FTEES. >> Okay. Then you did indicate the police
has a 1.5 increase of FTE. >> So back in 202 let's see >> 24 three >> in 20 four we went to we budgeted back up to get to 27 sworn officers and that was a
huge impact to our levy and therefore we're using the one-time public safety aid to help lessen that increase. So in 2024 we use 100%, 2025 we use 67% and 2026 proposing to use 33% to fund those positions.
>> Okay, that's what I understand it's paying for. But when you gave that total increase of FTE, why wasn't the police included in that? >> Because we have budgeted for 27 sworn officers and 24 and 25. So it's not an
increase in the number of full-time officers. We're just using fund balance to pay for those officers. >> Thank you. And then another question kind of unrelated. If a person doesn't pay their taxes by the May deadline and or the October deadline, uh, pays them late, what's the penalty?
>> I do not know that answer. I'm sorry. >> Thank you. That's fair. Appreciate it. That's all I have, Mr. President. Thank you. >> Yeah, Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. Thank you. I have just a quick question somewhat unrelated here, but maybe you can help me to understand this. It's my understanding that once a person's homestead bumps over a $500,000
threshold, they are no longer eligible for the homestead credit. Do we track or do we know the value how many of houses are bumped from year to year? Uh thus creating, you know, be becoming no longer eligible for that. Do we track that number? Do we know how
many houses are falling closer to that bubble? >> No, we do not track that. And um for pay year 2025, that amount was increased. It went from $430,000 to $517,000, I do believe. >> Okay. >> So, the state sets that.
>> So, that's being adjusted also. Um, so it's it's not a helpful predictor for future uh levy amounts knowing that as our values increase, we'd be getting closer to that bubble. So, correct. Okay. Understood. Thank you. >> I assume maybe the county would be
>> holding on to information that could be sifted through to get that number maybe year to year. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Mr. Beavenons. >> Thank you. I have a couple of questions if I may, Mr. Chair. I think they're for Mr. Joerger as our airport liaison, if I may.
>> Um, if you recall last year, we we levied $1,000 for the airport. >> And and this year, I think it's 21 >> 15. So my question is, we sent a letter to
the county board requesting that they discuss ownership of the airport and I understand we received a letter from Debbie Ericson who's not a county board member or at least not a voting one to my knowledge saying that the that the
county board was not interested in discussing ownership. Is that true >> to your knowledge? Do you do you know the date of the letter that you're referencing? >> Would have been prior to your term would have been prior to January 1st, 2025. >> Okay. So, uh, Mr. Chair, if I may.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Mr. Beaven, I can't speak to the that letter or, you know, what what the temperature was between the city of Brainard and Crowing County at the time that that letter was sent. What I can speak to is that at the meeting that
myself and Mr. Johnson attended with the county. Uh I I can say as I kind of reported as a follow-up to that meeting at the city council during the uh airport ticker that uh that the that the conversation was uh much less tepid and
and actually seemed uh to be generally in support of revising the amounts of of tax of levy amount for county versus city. Okay, that that's my second question is we sent a second letter
written and I presume to Debbie Ericson the county administrator about the possibility of administrating of the county administrating the or uh the entire levy and I believe at least
from my perspective I can't speak for the rest of you part of that is we split the levy request or whatever we agree on for the levy this year, $215,000. But our portion, at least to my knowledge, also gets our
our citizens also get taxed at the county level. I have seen a letter from Debbie Ericson saying that that they had discovered a way to to stop that that taxation of the
Brainer uh citizens. To your knowledge, has that happened in the last year since we asked them to look at that? >> I to my knowledge, nothing has been implemented in the last year. To my knowledge, there has been conversations and general support. >> Okay.
>> To to to go that direction. >> So, a year later, nothing has happened. >> I've I've not seen it. I I've I don't I have no problem if Mr. Johnson wishes to interject. >> Okay. Mr. Mr. Josh, I
>> I would say nothing has been finalized. I wouldn't say nothing has happened because two years ago when we started the conversation and sent letters, literally nothing happened this year. We've had meetings, we've had conversations, it it's it's moving.
We're having a conversation about the airport with the county and it's been good. We have no resolutions, but something is happening even though it's not yet completed. >> I would concur. >> Okay. The government is slow. It's >> I get this, but
okay. So, maybe I'm just being impatient. My second question is if we continue uh with the 5050 administration of the levy and we each levy our citizens,
we levy the city of Brainer citizens, they levy everybody else outside the county. So, the taxation issue gets fixed. our citizens are still paying more per person or per household than the county ones. And truth be told, that
was part of my part of my vote for the $1,000 was to try and use some leverage to get the county to make this more fair to the citizens of Brainard. So your confidence
is high that that they'll at least discuss it. >> Not only is my confidence high that they will at least discuss it, but I know that they are discussing it. I can tell you that at the meeting that I was at, everyone in the room unanimously agreed that the that the
system of tax that that the system that we are current using for tax now is unfair and needs reform. And did it come up that even even stopping taxing the citizens of Brandon the county part still is unfair
significantly because we just don't have as many people as the county. So we take the same amount of dollars. >> Go ahead, Mr. Johnson. Yeah. >> Yeah, we had that conversation and that's why there there was full agreement even from the county side that their tax capacity is probably over 10
times. Connie's been looking into it and working with the county. It's been it's it's happening but >> they're probably over 10 times the tax base as us. So if we both give 215 if you live in Brainer you're paying 10 times what somebody lives outside of Brainard. And that's everybody is aware
of that and I think everybody is initially in agreement to changing that. >> Okay. My I might >> giving it 100% to the county I don't think is where it will end up but better than what it is now. Yes. >> Okay. My concern is
it's been a year. They haven't even responded to the second letter. I don't share the same faith. Having been on this board through numerous meetings regarding the assessment of Laurel Street and the county attorney sitting
right there at that podium arguing against the county paying their what I would say fair share from the city of Brainer standpoint. I don't have the same confidence. You'd think they would have written a letter in a year. I I just don't know. And plus, there's other
municipalities. It just I'm just worried that the city it's always the city all the unfairness financially seems to fall on the city of Brainard. When we deal with our friends to the west, it seems to I just thought I would have thought as a
courtesy they would have sent a letter in a year. They could have scratched one out on a cocktail napkin. We're looking at it. Thank you for your request, but they haven't. And my I think my last question is or last two question is we
had some expenses that we weren't billing. I don't know who we bill for. I don't know. I understand we bill for it and I don't know if we build the county or the airport, but I I guess it's it really doesn't matter. But again, a year
ago, we discussed billing for um human resources, billing for financial that Connie puts in. To your knowledge, has anybody paid anything towards either of those two? >> I can't speak to what happened in 2025,
but I can speak to the fact that uh this was a topic of conversation when crafting the 2026 budget. And the discussion was basically that we are going to take IT human services and put and and and move all of that money into professional services that would then be
thus equally split as per the charter says now 50/50 between county and city of course obviously potentially that changes. >> City would pay that equally. >> It wouldn't build the airport. It wouldn't come out of the airport's levy. >> I think it would be billing the airport. Exactly. airport and then the airport
would adjust their budget and levy accordingly. >> That's correct. >> And make the payment. So I don't know. And maybe Connie, have we received anything in 2025 for 2025 services that we previously weren't billing them for, such as human resources? >> No, we have not. It is starting
effective 2026. >> Okay. So, a year after we requested that they discuss that and we felt it was unfair, they still haven't responded with any kind of response at all. >> I thought it was going to be effective
2026. I don't think there has been discussion that the airport would pay for those services prior to 2026 because it was not in their budget. It was not in our budget. Therefore, we started going in 2026. >> Yeah, I I I get that. But they could have we could have started billing January 1st
>> and we will start in 2020. or whenever we knew what the amount was, we could have started billing and >> correct. I We could have >> I don't know. That would be up to city administrator Borals. >> Here's here's my point. I part of the reason I voted for the
$1,000 was not to be mean to the airport, but to try and get some leverage from the county. And a year later, I don't think I don't think it's worked. And I it I find it very disappointing. And I want to support the airport's levy request. I think the
airport is essential, but it it seems like the deal that we signed however many years ago needs to be looked at and looked at in a more timely manner. Um,
again it seems like once again the city of Brainard is left holding the citizens of Brainard, not us seven, but the citizens of Brainard are left holding the financial bag because of our our partners in government and it just
doesn't seem fair. And then we're asked to respond to a 50% increase from the request from 2024 for the 2025 budget, which we didn't do.
But so I I'm on the library board. We did a 0% in 2024 and a 2% in 2025. What happens? What how do I tell somebody, well, we're going to give the airport a 50%
or two years at 25% increase when when I have people that argue the library is just as important and I I I don't know that I would make that argument but I know a lot of people might that they're in and out of that library every day. So my question is and this will be my final question. How do I
tell my constituents that the library or that the library was worth zero and two but the airport gets 50%. You just saw it up there, you know, from 145 to 214 something or whatever it was
roughly o over two years, not counting the fact that we gave him absolutely nothing last year, which which wasn't fair to the airport. I'm not making that argument at all. How do I justify telling them that the airport gets that much? And maybe Gabe can answer that. Gabe,
>> that's an easy justification. There's a statutory minimum that we're required to levy for libraries. Nearly every county and every city levies what they're legally required to give to the library. We being the generous taxpayers
of Brainard levy what is it Connie? 354% more than the statutory minimum. And and further when they don't take care of the building which is the reason we pay them the extra money is to maintain the building. when they don't take care of it, we'll just write them another half a million dollar check to fix their roof.
That's easily justifiable. We just did that this year. We didn't give them that 2%, but we gave them half a million dollars for a roof. The airport has never asked us half a million dollars for a roof. >> Gotcha. >> So, they're not the exact same. >> Okay. So, you're just just it it's it's
just the way it is. The library we don't have to legally. >> We pay the library significantly more than we have to. We have fighting tooth and nail for years now to pay the airport as little as possible. Last year it was a thousand. We don't do we don't do that with the library. Our baseline
is not the statutory minimum. >> So they're they're treated much better than the airport is. >> City budget. >> Is there a limitation or a statute on airport levies? >> Not that I'm aware of. Neil. >> Okay. >> Okay. So it's just and Mr. Joerger did a
great job earlier this year discussing the value of the increase for the levy. So, I'm not trying to dispute the value of the $214,000. I'm going to support it tonight. I just need to understand I went with $1,000 last year with the
hopes that we get something from our partners across the street and got absolutely nothing. One meeting this summer with a lot of handshakes and it just doesn't seem fair. I've seen it before from the county and I've seen it before from our friends to the west and
I just don't think it's fair to the citizens of Brainard. Um I understand time will time will tell but thank you Mr. Chair. I have nothing else to say. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bevven. Mr. Mayor, >> yeah, it sounds like you should send the
county a letter about the library. >> It sounds like you're more concerned about that. Maybe we should send them a letter about the library. >> Mr. Mr. Chza, >> um I echo a couple of Mr. Bevven's concerns. U typically um I think in
normal practice and procedure when this uh governing body uh asks the county a question related to a shared responsibility like like the airport. Um I I I in my opinion I think Mr. Beavens
got it. Um, we haven't seen anything from the county board. Um, and then if I could just uh just reel back a little bit from what I'm saying here is when Mr. Johnson and Mr. Joerger met with county reps, who exactly were those
individuals? >> The county >> Johnson >> uh well from the county board was Commissioner Barrows and then administrator Ericson was there and a number of their uh financial team. Okay.
So, I guess to my to my point is >> I've followed the county agenda and never since this whole thing came up, we have seen an item on any agenda, whether that's a committee of personnel or finance or budget or anything or a
regular board meeting or committee of the whole nothing. So, I I don't know what it takes. I've seen the responses from administrator Ericson uh answering for the county board, but again that's like taking a poll of uh I think you all know how I feel about those. If Nick were to ask each of us how we feel about
something that would be essentially u a definition of council action if we're giving an opinion or a response to something and I would be vehemently against doing things that way. I don't know how the county gets that information, how the administrator gets
that information, but I I know I I I can ask uh if if there's minutes regarding an action, and I know we won't find any. So, that goes back to Mr. Beman's point about not actually seeing anything from the county. Um the other thing about the taxation
is Connie, you referred to it as double, no double tax, and I I just want to caution everybody, it never has been a double tax. I've been uh known to have used that term. It is a twice tax. And when the county uh decided to add 6%
onto their levy to the airport and last year they um or the year before they offered us to decrease ours and we did that. Think about how wonky that is. Now essentially whatever the county levies for the airport at that time it went up 6% from 157,000.
So that made it 160 whatever thousand 168 or something. Um now they're just taxing Brainer citizens more when that happened because it was a that additional amount was still levied against the entire tax base of Crowing County which included Brainard citizens.
So that formula whoever thinks that's a fair way of doing things is just completely wrong. And now according to what we heard from administrator Ericson to fi I guess get back to that point is they have agreed starting next year to
remove branded citizens from their portion of the airport levy to I guess that goes back to your question Mr. Beaven but um yes it is I I caution I caution the use of double tax because it's not and twice tax is a more appropriate term to use. Um there's been
a little bit of a um question raised on that in the past and I think we clarified it but just uh just to clarify it is a twice tax however not supposed to be happening as long as we contribute equally or more to the airport than the
county. So thank you Mr. President. >> Thank you Mr. Chzach. Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah I I'll just have one final word on the airport. I uh I I'm not overly satisfied with how the process has gone. I think it is moving in the right direction which is a good thing. The uh
it was appropriately I believe pointed out in that meeting we had that it's a city of Brainard ordinance that both the city and the county follow. It's not a county ordinance. So if we want to just force something and do it, we would need to change our city ordinance. We can't wait on the county to change our
ordinances. So, we could just go change our ordinance and we could do that in two meetings, but we're trying to, you know, work together and hopefully something that everybody's happy with. But that's all I have. We can change the
ordinance if we want that. We could motion for that right now, but I I I think we we give it a little bit more time. >> All right. Right now, we're talking about the budget. Mhm. >> This is all relevant to the budget, but we're definitely getting somewhere away
from the center line. Um, but if anybody else has a quick question for staff, one more time, I'll ask. If not, then we do need to open a public hearing. So, if there's somebody, anybody in the audience, I'm going to open the public hearing. It's 6:46. If
you want to come up and approach the council regarding the budget, please do so now. And if you are online, press star three to raise your hand. That way we know you want to speak. Ask one more time if anybody wants to
come up and address the council, please do so. Now, nobody JD. Okay. All right. With that, we will close the public hearing at 6:47. Are we looking for action on that? We're
waiting. Okay. Excellent. Moving on. Next, we have number four. This is a discussion of developing Gustiffson Park. And is this Mr. Cranic? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, city council directed staff to bring this item back to tonight's meeting. Uh,
staff provided city council three options for Gustoson Park at uh, the last city council meeting. Uh the park board discussed Gustoson Park at an earlier meeting but did not make a formal recommendation. They were open to the idea. Uh the three options that staff provided was option one work with
the Brainer HR to allow them to meet with developers to potentially develop the property. Uh this action would allow the HA to begin working with the developer, but it would not officially convey the property. Uh they would need to come back with a proposal. Uh the city would not receive market rate and
potentially no revenue. That would be up to the HA um on their proposal. Uh it would add additional affordable housing to Brainard. Uh option two, direct city staff to bring a preliminary plan to the park board for a formal recommendation and receive a quote from a surveying company to replplat the property. Uh
city council would make a final decision at a future meeting. Uh again, selling the properties at market rate could generate about seven lots uh ranging in price from 15 to 30,000 depending on size. Uh total revenues may be between 120 to 155,000. Uh again, this is very
preliminary. It's kind of a ballpark number. Um when reviewing what other properties in Brainer have sold for, uh residential properties have sold relative relatively quickly when uh priced right. Uh staff does not anticipate any sales in 2026. Uh with this option, the goal would be to go
through the planning process of replatting, obviously working with the surveying company, and have them listed by the end of the year. And then finally, option three would be to entertain no future discussion on the development of Gustin Park and leave the property in its current state. And with that, I can answer any questions. Also, Eric can answer any questions on behalf
of the HA. >> Thank you, Mr. Cranic. Does anybody have questions for James? >> I have a motion when you're ready. >> I have a question. Mr. Beaven, >> I actually have two questions. One is is there and and I heard at the last meeting that the park board had determined
this was not a property they wanted to maintain as a park and nor could they afford to keep it as a park without unless we raised their levy. I heard that from a council member, not a park board member. I'd like to see if our park leaison, Mayor
Bedau, knows. Is there minutes to show that? cuz I suspect there might be people who don't like us if we choose option one or two. >> Yeah. Once again, this is not about whether or not this particular property is a money-making venture. This is about
a philosophy as to whether or not we can or cannot continue to maintain the properties that we have. I can't speak as to whether or not this particular property is a a crutch to fall on. What I can say is that the park board is
operating underfunded and is trying to find ways of getting themselves back from underneath that. That's looking at every single unit within the entire system. That's every single bench that we own, every single tree that we have, every single blade of grass that we
have. So, when the the the question was brought forward to them, would you be interested in this? I think it was a split decision. and the park board said take a look at it and see what comes back. Beyond that, I don't think the park board has made any vocal representation as to whether or not they
want or disrup I think they're split on that. But I think from a from a simple budgeting standpoint, something's got to give at some point. And you put this in front of him, they said, "Well, let's find out if this is the something." >> I I get you. Thank you. Is it possible
to get and I'll ask staff if it's possible Tony to get the minutes that show that just because I suspect there might be people who are I get calls all the time why can't we have more parks right it's all about the it's often about the money and the second question is for Mr. Cranvic and that's is there
an economic difference? I I know sometimes we convey property to the EDA to sell. Would there be an economic difference? You mentioned option one, we would give the property to the HA and therefore we'd receive no proceeds. But
as Mr. Johnson suggested, if we sell the property oursel, which is option two, we might be able to offset some of those parkboard deficits. And my question is, is that the primary difference between option one and two is who gets who sells
it and who gets the money? >> That is um again the H board would have to approve, you know, any type of funding to go towards that. Um whether it be some or or little >> or none >> or none >> could just be people build houses all the time without city without city
funding. >> Correct. and and the HR would probably work with I can't completely speak for them, but typically work with one developer um to try to develop an overall property uh much like Brainard Oaks. Um and at that point, they'd work with the developer, probably come with with some type of replat for that area
with the idea of what the developer wants to do. The city side of things, you probably look at at replplatting it to sell the properties individually. Um a little bit longer initial process, but then the properties would would most likely sell a lot faster if they're individually replatted. Thank you. So, but but but it would save
us money if we presume the HA would give the developer some sort of financial benefit like you just suggested. >> So, >> I mean that's taxpayer money. So the the city process, we'd have to pay for a
survey to replat it where obviously we wouldn't be doing that from the H, but then obviously we'd receive potentially market rate on it, which would then go back to um maybe funding a future park or go into whatever revenue that the city council would choose. >> Gotcha.
Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anything else, Mr. Beans? >> No. Thank you. >> Anyone on this side? Mr. Chzach. >> Yeah. Did we ever determine um the amount of staff time? I believe that all we do now is mow this park. Is that correct, Mr. or maybe Mr.
>> Mr. Mr. Chair? We do uh mow it and we also uh maintain that alley, that walkway. Uh we brush that with our skid steer in the winter to keep that sidewalk clean. >> And uh is there any idea of the amount of staff time used like monthly or
>> during the summer? I did some analysis and from Conniey's uh FEMA regarding equipment use and our uh use for equipment such as the mower and the skid steer um the staff time for the summer is about three hours uh per week dependent on the rainfall during the
summer or the winter based on snowfall but it's about 8,000 to 12,000 per year based on the rainfall and snowfall. >> You say staff time is about three hours per month >> per week. >> Okay. All right. I just have one
comment, Mr. President. Um I surprisingly this was an article in the newspaper and I heard from a lot of people on this and to a person everybody said they don't want to see this go away. Um because once it's gone, it's
gone. And I agree. I um Mr. Jagger used a term at our last meeting about this shiny object. And it seems like that's what we're doing here is looking at that as a potential revenue and it's uh once it's gone, it's
gone. So that's all I got. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else down here? Tad. Go ahead. >> Question for James. James, when you were describing option two, I believe you perhaps I misheard, but you referenced getting that plat done by the end of the year. Is that the short time frame on
that? It's so that it could affect this levy or what's the rush on that? Again, um it wouldn't affect in in staff's opinion this year's levy. Um to be able to go through the entire replotting process, have um city council agree to a surveyor um go with a brokerage company
for residential properties and get them listed. The goal would be essentially by the end of the year to get that entire process done, but it wouldn't in staff's opinion would not affect um the the 2026 levy >> just to move expeditiously, but there wouldn't be a we wouldn't have to do it by the end of the year.
>> Yep. bound by that if we did select that. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Eric. Mr. Jagger. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to um maybe just shed just a couple of my or share just a couple of my thoughts on evaluating this. This is clearly a discussion that is squarely in
the gray area. I don't I if there is an obvious answer one way or another, it isn't hasn't presented itself to me. But uh in in preface to this to this meeting tonight, I went through and just kind of made a general list of kind of what I think are are some pretty um notable
advantages or pros and then there's there's clearly some cons here. Uh the the advantages that I see are there's there's primarily four key advantages. One is that short-term liquidity. That's that seems to be right easily easily at our grasp. We have a long-term tax base
ability here. Um we also have um uh the the concept that we've talked about of removing some of the burden of responsibility of uh maintaining from our parks. Uh we have the ability to turn that liquidity into something that can go to one of our other parks. But I
think another key aspect of this is the expectation probably well founded to in a very short time frame add 17 to 14 dwelling units within our city that could happen at market rate with the free marketplace just doing what it does. Uh I believe that's the entire
impetus of this conversation is that the marketplace right now appears to bear out the b you know that ability. Um, and I think that is something that we should strongly consider, our ability to to add housing stock uh to our our city when we have the ability. Clearly, one of the
cons here is is that people in Northeast Brainard, especially those directly adjacent to this property whom are used to seeing, you know, a park or a grass space across the street, may not have that. That's that's clearly a con. I understand that. Uh, one thing I do want to point out is that um, an entity
called Trust for Public Lands. They're they're a national organization that that helps cities and municipalities understand where parks should be and how they should be built and so forth. They have the what they call green mile and that is a a park within a mile to pretty much everybody within your city. This
area here falls squarely within a half mile one direction to a beautiful park and another half mile to another beautiful park. So, uh, I'm just weighing out those pros and cons and and just lend those to your ear for consideration as well. So, I'm I'm not I have no appetite to die on the hill of the Gustoson Park conversation. Uh,
that's just my thought here and in, uh, as I see it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Jagger. Yeah, you hit the nail on the head as far as what I'm thinking. It's it's not something that we need to decide today. Um, I definitely lean if if we're going to go with an option, I think option two,
it still leaves it open one way or another. If we get that information and we decide we don't want to go ahead and replplat or or have it surveyed, we don't have to. If we decide to do it and then we find that it's worth x amount of money and we can sell it to a developer
and the park board is in 100% agreement, then then at least we know. Uh but right now this discussion is just about which direction we want to go. Are we saying absolutely not or are we asking for a little bit more information so we can make a good decision in the future? And
that's where I sit. So if we're going to go with any of these three options up here, I definitely lean towards option two. If we go a year and this is on the market and doesn't move at all, then I can definitely see handing it over to the H as well, you
know, or keeping it as a park. things can change over time. So, um, if we want to move forward on this, I would look for a motion, but you guys can motion whatever you would like. >> Mr. Chair, I've got a motion.
>> Mr. Johnson, >> I'd move to direct staff to bring a preliminary plan to the park board for a formalized recommendation and receive a quote from a surveying company to replant the property. And I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson, second by I heard the first one down this way. I believe it
was Mr. Ericson. >> Mr. Ericson. Okay, Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah. Now that we have a motion, I'll speak to it. I >> I think this is the easiest low-risk option to take. If the market, which the duplex market does seem to be really
strong right now, if the market bears it out that housing is feasible to be built there, we will be solving a problem in our community of adding more housing. If it's not feasible, we're still going to be mowing it. There will still be grass in that neighborhood and if it doesn't sell for a year or two, we can say, "Hey,
maybe it's just best as a park." But doing nothing is is fine, too. But I I prefer option two. I think we should just look into it and see what happens over the next year or two. >> Mr. Beavens, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. I also support the motion for the and tried to second it
for all the reasons that Mr. Johnson brought up and especially the one that he didn't bring up and that's that the park board has already decided that this is beyond their financial means to continue to maintain this and as I said a week ago I hope they look at all the
parks because if they're in the dire financial straits that they and really parks got to be one of the top three reasons that people move to a community. So, I support the parks and I but it appears there's some something some
issue here between what we're you what we're funding the the parks with the dollars and cents and what the parks needs to survive and at a minimum and I I would as part of the decision going forward do we raise the parks levy
because it's absolutely necessary to maintain what we currently have or do we look at maybe selling off some of our other parks which I hope is not the case but I also understand the economics that parks don't generate any revenue. I live
by one so I'll support the motion. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Beavens Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. Uh so two things. First of all I I'm leazison to the park board. I've been leazison on to the park board for 10 years and I do that because I love our parks. I it's actually the one thing
in the city that I care the most about. I spend most of my time thinking about the parks. When I started 10 years ago, I was not excited about our budgeting process at the park department or at the park board. I thought it was a mess. Actually, I'll even go so far as to call it a joke.
We were not doing a good job of budgeting and making sure that we were keeping an eye on stuff where we are now with that park board and with those people that have been doing it worlds beyond. But that came with a long process of doing exactly what you said.
These park board members went into every single park. Mr. Jagger, you were on there. Every single park, went through every single item that we have, made a list of it exhaustively. I have sat through so many parkboard meetings doing exactly what you're saying. They've done
all this and all they're saying is look, we got to figure out something because what we want to have is the best parks that we can have. We can have as many parks as we want, but if we have as many parks as we want, we're not going to have the best parks that we that we can have. So, let's pick pick what we can do
and what we can do best. And what I've heard from them on a regular basis is let's cut the grass, let's trim the trees, and let's give people a place to be. Gerson's a great example of that. I will just remind the council that you are the ones that started this. You took
it off of the park board's plate by not dedicating it as parkboard land and started the entire conversation. The park board has just simply continued in this process saying, "Yeah, take a look at it. It's not parkland anyways. You've
never dedicated this back as parkland because you as a council voted and I I'd like to see the record to see how you voted, Kelly, because I had a feeling you voted in favor, but you may not have. >> Actually, according to Mrs. Cope, it was
done shortly after Garfield burned. So, it was before I was on >> No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about just recently in these chambers, we rededicated all the parkland because we had never done it. And when we did that, the council left off this park and they
left off the trailside park. That was a decision made by the council >> part of Buffalo Hills. >> The park board, part of Buffalo Hills as well, which has also been looked at. The park board is simply trying to just figure out a way to have the best parks they can possibly have. And if you bring it back to them, I'm sure they're going
to say the same thing. We'd love to figure out how to have the best parks that we can possibly have. City of Briner, you tell us what's a park and we'll take care of it. and we'll take care of it be as best we can. We're also going to have to tell you that it's going to cost some money, but that's a different conversation for a different day. But at the same time, just again, I
think everyone on the park board loves this park. They think they want to keep this park. You said it's not a park. They said, "Well, take a look at it. See if you want to have it or not." They said, "Sure, go ahead and take a look at it." Now, here we are. I don't think it's as complicated as we've tried to make the whole thing out. And for the people of Northeast Brainard who I who is near and dear to my heart because I
grew up there playing in this park right down the street, literally two blocks away from here is where I grew up. Love this park. Don't want to see it go, but decisions have to make sometimes. And I will support whatever decision the council makes on this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anyone else? If we have no further comments, we have a motion. And if you want to read option two, that is the motion. Correct. >> It is. I left off that city council make final decision in a future meeting
because that's just obvious in how we work. It's not required in the motion. >> It is correct. Okay, >> Mr. President. Roll call, please. >> Absolutely. All right, Tony, go ahead and call the role. >> Jagger, >> yes. >> Erikson, >> yes. >> Bevans, >> yes. >> Chzach, >> no. >> Johnson,
>> yes. >> OD, >> yes. >> That motion carries. All right, moving on. Next, we have a discussion on the annex. Uh, this is a discussion on the future usage for city hall annex building. And this is Mr.
Havagarst. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Attached to this agenda item is the information provided to council on the November 17th meeting. At that meeting, staff was directed to discuss this item at the December 8th special council meeting. The city council has several decisions
to make about the future of the city hall annex building. Usage should be considered first. Should we sell it? If we do, we have an appraisal of the annex building and staff would advise to sell it as is. We can keep it as a city asset. And with that, we have two
options. We could lease it or keep it for city staff. Whether we lease it or keep it for city staff, it is advisable to to complete the stated improvements on November 17th. recommendations uh include the following. We could sell
the annex and council could direct staff to list a property. Number two, we could keep the annex as a city asset and complete the improvements. Direct staff to hire Woods to develop a scope of work for the bidding process or direct staff to award the proposal with highex using
the Gordian process. Number three is to keep the city at um annex a as an asset with no improvements. And with that, we can take any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Hagar. >> Motion when you're ready. >> Does anybody have questions? Mr. Chzach?
>> Yeah, with the uh high-tech proposal. >> What's our deadline to uh give them the word if we want to do that or not to maintain our uh current price? say >> it was 30 days from the proposal >> which is the 17th of this month. >> And so that
he indicated it was 30 days from that last council meeting >> which was November 17th, >> right? >> Okay. >> That'd be December 17th. um that would might be my pre preference is to go um with uh the offer from
Hi-Tech to uh get that amount of work done that they're proposing. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Johnson says he has a motion. So, >> uh Mr. Mayor, >> I just have a quick question for staff real quick. If the council chose to make this a park, could the council make this a park? >> Indoor playground.
>> We don't have any money for any of our parks. >> Oh, imagine. >> Who's going to mow a lawn? >> We'd have to sell one. >> There isn't a lawn. Okay. Anybody have any real questions? No. Okay. Um, Mr. Johnson, sounds like you have a
motion, right? >> Yeah. I'd move that we keep the annex as a city asset and complete the improvements by directing staff to award the proposal to high-tech with the Gordian process and the attached contract and ISO move. >> Second. >> Motion by Johnson, second by Chzach. Any
discussion on that, Mr. Johnson? >> These are repairs that need to be made to the building. I mean, we still haven't really decided what we're going to do with it or if right, this is where we're making that decision, but even if we decide to keep it, it's still just going to be sitting there empty. We don't know what we're
doing, but it needs windows. It needs the roof, the furnace, the HVAC. Let's get all of that done. And then when we decide if we are going to move it out into their own building, we can do that. But we don't know what we're doing yet. But I think we should keep it cuz the
the cost of this contract of kind of securing the shell of the building at the very least is a reasonable price at a couple hundred thousand or if we wanted to tear that down and build a 3,000 square foot structure or whatever it is, it'd be astronomical. So I think it's prudent to keep the building, do
the necessary repairs, >> right? And if we do if we don't do these repairs now, they're only going to get more expensive later. And there's a good chance that we might have issues with more rot in the windows and and different issues with the heating and HVAC that that uh aren't there yet. Mr.
Beaven, did you have something to add? >> Just that I support the motion for all the reasons presented. And I would hope since we do not have plans for the building at this point in time, as has been previously stated, I
would hope we would look at 2A on the alternative as far as like trying to generate some lease income. We used to have the state of Minnesota Community Action used to be in there and it's a cool old building. So, I would hope we've actually had one request to purchase it. Maybe that person would
consider leasing it. I don't I don't know. But if we lease it for a dollar, it'd be more than what we're getting now. >> Yeah. >> I think I think T 2A is actually directed more towards more of an extensive improvement on the
building. So, a more detailed >> You'd be surprised at what people pay money for. >> Oh, we watch it all the time. >> Yeah, I know you do, >> Mr. Jagger. >> Yes, thank you. And I I I was really looking forward to this conversation. And I I believe the impetus of this even
coming up onto, you know, before us tonight is so that we could have a vision of what to do with this building before we chose to choose to spend any money. And I still kind of feel that way. My concern with just moving forward even with this money is is it narrows our window of opportunity or or the ability to adjust to what the market
might be telling us if we decide to not keep this because we'll I would feel like oh I want to not only make what it was worth at the time of the appraisal plus what we just spent on it which I believe narrows our ability potentially to the marketplace. So I just feel like
this is uh a bit of a myopic decision. So I'm not going to support it even though it may end up being the right decision. I just don't feel like it's the right thing for me right now because we just don't have the the total vision of what to do with it. I'm I'm not in favor of just spending money just in case. That's all. >> Thank you.
>> But I do appreciate the dialogue. >> I do think that you make a very solid point that we should maybe try and come up with a consensus on what we're going to do in the future with this building. My feeling is that I I know we're going to have to expand eventually and our staff can find space in there. I think
it's the least expensive route to expand city hall. It's connected to city hall as well. So if we sold it, we no longer have control over the maintenance inside the building to an extent. And if there happen to be a fire
connected to our city hall, I mean, worst case scenario, I don't even know if that's possible that that fire could spread to our city hall, but we've already had city hall on fire once and I don't want to see it happen again. At least once that I know of. Mr. Chzon. >> Um, yes. A question related to the work
that's being proposed that we're the motion is to to um does this by chance increase the value of the property once this work is completed? Does anybody have an opinion on that? >> Mr. President, >> Mr. John, >> I have a very strong opinion on it.
Jeff, we did receive one offer one time and in the offer was I'll give you this much money as long as you fix everything before I move in. So that offer was we would have to do this anyway to get what was offered to us. And I imagine anybody looking at this 110 plus year old
building is going to want some allowances for basic repairs to the to the exterior shell. A beautiful 100y old building. Beautiful. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And and I would just offer just a counter opinion if I may in that if I was a buyer of
this building, I would not want the work done beforehand because generally it's my belief that the that the public can purchase goods and services less expensively than government. So I would be trying to weigh that out as potentially myself as a buyer of this building. I'm not saying that's for
everyone, but there may be two trains of thought as to whether or not we are really adding the value. And now that I do know that the last buyer said they would only buy it at the amount they offered with a couple hundred grand in work done. Okay, that even makes a little more concerning to me. So, but I
I'll support whichever way we go. >> All right, any more discussion on that motion? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Against. Same sign.
>> I. That motion carries. >> And I do not think we have anything else left on this agenda tonight. So we are just looking for a motion to adjurnn. So move. >> Second. >> Motion by Chzach, second by Bevven. All those in favor say I. I. Against. Same
sign. Too bad we're already adjourned.