for the pledge of >> allegiance. One nation doing roll call. Uh council member Lundine is absent tonight, but he did let us know that he would not be here. Uh we will open up the floor for public comment. If there's any public comment tonight, you're welcome to come forward
and just state your name and address for the record, please. Uh we will be having a threeminut time limit and please keep it to city business, not personal or political attacks. If there's anybody for public comment tonight, you're welcome to come forward. Come on up, Todd. Thank you for coming.
>> And we will talk about your agenda item and committee of a whole when we come back to it. >> Christian County Commissioner District 4. Yeah, I'm glad to see that on the cow agenda there because I always feel like I'm when I come up and talk here under public comment, I feel like I'm taking away from other people's time. So, I
think having a nice slot will be really good. So, I just wanted to give a little update on um the county levy there. We uh we ended up uh voting on a 1.99% levy the county which uh is actually
really really good. I wanted to see zero and as a matter of fact, I wanted to vote for a zero one but what What happened was is we had a higher there was a higher levy there and three of us voted down the higher one and uh then it they were not going to vote for a 1.9.
So I had to be the I had to be the pie basically in order to get that passed because I just I want to see as little as little of an increase for the people as possible. So um anyway that's any any questions for me? >> Oh good job. That means your tax rate
went down pretty well. was really good. I mean, we did use a little bit of fund balance, but the biggest the biggest thing for us was creating that capital improvement fund. You know, moving items over to where they should they should be. So, but we still have a we'll still have a really healthy fund balance. You
know, don't think there's any worry there. Anyways, kind of excited about the 1.9. Again, I didn't want to vote for any levy increase, but it was a matter of that or the people paying more of a levy. Was there any services expanded or is that just all to fund UN
>> Was there any new or expanded services or was that all to fund uh state mandates that were not funded? >> Well, this is the problem. This is that was why they didn't want to go down to 1.9 a couple of the other commissioners because you don't know the unknown, you know, coming for with all these mandated
state stuff that aren't going to be funded anymore, which >> yeah, I don't know. Anyway, no, I just the whole the whole county in general, everybody has done a great I've been cutting back on expenses and I had said, you know, we got to run the county like a business. So, they taking in only a certain amount of money. We can only be
putting a certain amount of money out. All right. Anything else? >> All right, guys. Thank you. >> Thank you for coming in and good job. >> Anyone else for public comment tonight? Hearing none, we will move on to
adopting the agenda. I did have a uh a request to move L2, L3, and L5 out of the consent agenda uh for some short discussion, especially ahead of the budget approvals because some of those could have budget implications. Otherwise, are there any other changes
or recommended changes? >> Is it L2, L3, and L5? >> Correct. >> Okay. Adopt with changes, >> Miss Wood. L6, L6 of personnel policy. >> Um >> you want to continue that discussion? >> Yeah. So that would that just take the place of the cow discussion then?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Then yes, move L6 as well. >> Thank you. >> Any other changes or additions or problems with that >> motion adopt with L2, L3, L5, L6 pulled.
>> Second. >> Motion on the floor from Commissioner Peterson or Council Member Peterson. Second from Council Member Homegrren. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries 4 Z. Uh so those should be before the budget um
before adopting the budget in the agenda. So it would be the new K4, K5, K6, and K7. >> All right. Uh next we will move on to proclamations, uh commendations, certificates of awards. So, I just want
to give a huge shout out uh to Joel Baisy, Christopher Morgan, Michael Gloon, and Josh Becker for their service. Uh the first three have been here for five years, and Mr. Becker has been here for 15 years. Um it's been great to see these faces in this community for such a long time. Uh they're all very involved in our
community and we all appreciate them. Uh so, we have a couple certificates here uh tonight. Joel is here. Um so, I'd ask you to come forward. And Josh, you're here as well. So, come on forward for a picture. Do you guys want to do them separate or together? >> All right. Sounds good.
All righty. Thank you everybody for that. Uh next we'll move on to approval of the city council meeting minutes. Um I did have one addition myself for one slight change. Uh item nine of the consent agenda. I would like to add that we thank the sponsors and and donors for illuminate as well. Uh further down in
that we had said that we we thank the uh volunteers but I would like to make sure that you know the sponsors and donors for illuminate get recognized in there as well. >> Any other changes? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion to approve by council member
Heman. Second by council member Peterson. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries 40. The minutes are approved. Next, we have the announcements. Uh, city offices will be closed Thursday, January 1st, 2026 in observance of New Year's Day. Uh, economic development authority, Tuesday,
January 6, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Uh, notice the new time there at 6:30 p.m. instead of following uh, the city council meeting. And, uh, city council meeting Tuesday, January 6, 2026 at 7 p.m. Any council committee reports this evening?
>> Had uh, committee education last week. uh brochures went out, so people should already have those or be receiving those for the winter and early spring activities to sign up for stuff. I had a BMX uh board meeting. Uh they're
projected to be the number one track this year um but doesn't technically end until end of the month. So, they're doing a great job there. And then they're just doing the basic uh preparation for next year and all their
races that they they have to do. >> So, Miss Wood and I uh went on a tour with the city of Baldwin. Uh LMC had like a gathering there. Uh they're actually the newest incorporated city in Minnesota. Uh they went from a township to a city last year because Princeton was annexing in their properties and
forcing undue compliance on those annex properties to now meet Princeton standards instead of the old Baldwin Township standards. So they decided to incorporate uh to protect their 7100 township residents um to try and keep, you know, their taxes low and and have them have their freedoms. Uh after the
meeting, I sat down with their mayor and their fire chief and discussed, you know, their budget, uh their city structure, and some of their fire operations. Uh the thing that stuck out to me the most was that they respond uh to roughly 400 calls per year. Uh they have very similar 7,100 residents to the
city of Sani. At a yearly, fire department cost around $200,000 uh which comes out to a cost of roughly $500 per call. Uh when looking at the San Diego Fire District, we see more calls here. Uh 550 calls in our district uh with a budget of $800,000 coming out
to a rough cost of almost $1,500 per call. Uh so I asked them how they did it. You know, I'm kind of curious like how are you able to keep something so efficient and and respond to calls? Uh their average call time is 4 minutes, which is very impressive. Um, so right now they have a far a part-time fire
chief uh who's paid 25,000 a year and they are efficient and uh methodical about spending on on used equipment. Uh so they were actually to buy able to buy a ladder truck on Facebook which would be probably a couple hundred,000 used usually. They found one for $10,000. Um
it was pretty impressive to see that. Uh their fire station looked pretty nice and they had an emergency response and training room upstairs. I think it was really cool. Uh, so I just like to sit down uh with the fire board to to see uh what's going on with their budget a little bit. Um, you know, call volume
has gone down and their debt has dropped off, but the costs still keep going up. Uh, so I'd like to maybe uh talk with the board and see if there's anything creative that we can help with, you know, to try and get the cost down uh for our residents and for everybody involved with that. So, that was just a little bit of an eye openener and it was
great to see. I'm really excited for that city. Uh, I think it'll be great and I hope they, uh, give them all the best wishes. Uh, for the school committee report, uh, as promised, I'm diving into the Arts and Science Academy, uh, their financials and proficiency rates. I'm working with the school leadership to get a tour to
discuss, uh, a couple of those things and kind of see where they're at, and I'll come back hopefully next month with something. Anything else for committee reports? All right, then we will move on to business item K1, agenda request for Alyssa Mahoney.
Come on up and just state your name and address for the record, please. Thank you for coming in. Uh, probably the the hand one is better. >> Alyssa Mahoney, 809 Dogwood Street, Southwest ICN. >> Thank you.
So, take the floor. I know you were in here last month and we had some discussion. Um I'm hoping that we have some more information from you from the for you from the police department, from the engineer. Um if you had questions you wanted to to ask straight away, go for it. >> Yeah. Did we have any reports with the
speed signs that went out? >> Yeah, we put our speed sign up for a week and uh the data we got back didn't work. So that's why you saw the counties out there. That sign's back again. I know we've had that issue. So that's a whole another agenda topic on technology
that we need to upgrade, but we were able to borrow one from the county to put out there. I gave the download to Jason to run some of his mathematical knowledge on it. >> So So yeah, the uh the data came back
with the uh um the 85th percentile. That's like what a speed limit is supposed to be based on at 26 and a half miles an hour. So pretty close to our 25 mph speed. Um there was
I guess technically nine speeders that were identified only one of which was over 40 miles an hour. Um so that was the the new data. Um looking at the past data before our project there were
One, two, three, four, five, six, six, seven. Seven cars that went over 40 miles an hour and three that were over 50 miles an hour. So, you know, based on the data that we have, the uh, you know,
those high-end speeders, you know, I guess weren't observed during the the data collection. now. Um, and the, uh, the 85th percentile looks like it more or less stayed the same from the
original data. So, you know, comparing the two, essentially, we didn't observe any or as many high speeders. There were still some, but, you know, pretty proportionate to a normal city street. Um, and then that 85th percentile coming
out right pretty close to our speed limit, just more or less tells us it's performing as expected. >> Do you know uh during the winter months are those speed signs usually showing a lower speed because people go less speed in the summer or in the winter versus
the summer? Is that something that we could obviously come back in spring when the roads are more open and do it again and come back with more numbers? >> Yeah, I think I mean obviously if there was a snowstorm, if there was you know who knows what going on in a winter month, it's going to have different
speeds, right? people are going to feel less safe to drive those crazy speeds, I'm sure. You know, I don't know. But yeah, probably worth trying to do another round of data collection when it's >> really nice out uh and see how it compares because we did do the last one was in
May or June. >> Yeah. So, you know, at least weighs the comparable month, you know, do the May to June uh window and uh see how more of a same condition, same season performs because yeah, I mean, obviously, uh in
the winter it's tough to have that direct relationship and you know, with a relatively short data collection, you know, um amount of information. >> So, was that same was it on the same signpost as before? Same exact location. I
>> it was the same location. It was just on a trailer because the county has a speed trailer. Okay. Not the sign. >> So, like I said, we had ours up for a week. Got it. >> We brought it back down and I think we were data collecting 3,000 data points a day with the highest speeds of 90 some
miles an hour. So, obviously there was some air in that. So, that's been gone back. And anecdotally, one of our officers stopped somebody for going like 35 or something down that road during that time. And their response to why they were speeding is they were trying
to see the number that they could reach. >> Nice. >> So they got a token of appreciation along with their number, but it was kind of interesting that that was the >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's what I was going to ask is if we could redo it in the summer months
so we can get more comparable numbers >> and hopefully we'll have a better piece of equipment at that time that we can get that data again. Yeah, I Yeah, I think that'd be great. And then um uh just another question about the crooked joint line for the curb issue.
>> Um wondering if that can get fixed. Um whether that's under warranty with the construction company, if someone can come out and fix that joint. >> So So I mean it technically is under warranty. Um it could be done uh to be
able to redo a curb. Uh Pretty much in any situation, you end up having to patch the street in front of it. And for this situation, the joint just being at a skew, but still a singular joint
and relatively straight versus we would end up with a saw cut line of the entire curb panel. So essentially, we'd have an eight foot long stretch of street that would have a one to two foot wide saw cut section that would get hand tamped
in and essentially in the end that's going to well I guess appearance is relative but you know it's going to look worse with a patch and then it's also going to have a higher risk of failure in the future because the compaction and the material type used isn't as good um
and it's not as uniform and water can get into those saw cut joints faster and we're going to have a larger problem faster if we remove and replace that angled joint. >> So I have a question for you on that Jason. Is that angled joint that's not a
relief cut? That is one piece of curb that was that's buted up to an old piece of curb that wasn't properly straight cut. >> Correct. So that so there would be a whole it's not just a relief cut that's crooked. It's the whole thing >> through and through most likely. Yeah, it's the whole depth of >> So, would it be possible to do a
cosmetic surface level, say a two, three inch, you know, 3 in, 4 in cut out of that section, um, like 4 in deep, get rid of that whole crack section and just do a a surface level curb right there just so you have no seam at all. Or you can cut
a straight saw line cut in it. Is there any creative solution that >> So, you're not going to not have a seam. You know, if you do anything, the ends of whatever you did is going to be a seam, >> right? >> Concrete reflects through extremely. And so, if you even attempt to do a surface
patch, which would be jackhammering to whatever depth you arbitrarily choose, the underlying joint is going to reflect through and you're going to get the same crack. And now it's going to be hairline type of a crack as opposed to this kind of controlled, >> you know, admittedly not straight joint.
um you know to to for a maintenance perspective um to prevent a future you know degradation we could have them do a crack seal to prevent more water from going into it to prevent it from crumbling. You know like 90% of the curb
we removed on this project had that salt and the crumbling happening like each joint was kind of opening up the lip of curb was crumbling away. um sealing that, you know, with like a joint seal should help protect this specific one
from having that happen, you know, as fast as the rest of it. But, you know, that'd be the only treatment I think that we could do that would actually improve the, you know, the condition of the infrastructure. Um,
you know, anything else is going to add new patches or new failure points. So, >> okay. Would that make it look a little bit cosmetically better? >> I mean, >> is that like just silicone? Are you talking? >> Yeah, basically just like what you'd
picture, you know, that crack sealant, you know, just the silicone joint fill more or less. >> And but they would be required to do a minimum of that. >> We can have them do that. Yeah. >> Okay.
Do you guys have any other creative solutions? I'm not Yeah, I'm not totally pleased with to see that the contractor skipped a cut just to but it is what it is. So, I don't if anybody uh that's watching is concrete guy and has any sort of ideas,
I'm open to them. So, and if there's something creative that we can have the contractor do and come back and fix their work, I'm all ears to it. So, Melissa, did you have any other questions? >> Um, yeah. I would just like confirmation that something could be done to get it
fixed because the job wasn't done correctly. >> Yep. >> And we already paid in full for the street on our end. So, we just expect that it to be fixed. The supervisor um that headed this job as well came out and said while they're working on the road that it was not done correctly and that they would come out and fix it. And
if it's covered under warranty, I just I kind of think it's a no-brainer to hold accountable the construction company and just have them come out and do it. I don't think that that's going to be um you know any any sort of negative for the city or take up you know that much time. I think they need to come out and
just make it right. Um so I'd like confirmation that they'll at least come out and and attempt to fix it. Um because otherwise our concrete company that we're hiring this spring um we're going to ask the city if we can redo the curb because we're putting a concrete
driveway in um and we want our to be straight. And so this is really poor timing because we've already paid having someone come out to do it and they're definitely we're definitely going to show them and see if they can do it if all else sorry if all else
fails. So it it really just doesn't make sense to me that like we'd have to hire out a different company to do the due diligence versus just having the original construction company come out under warranty and fix the the issue that they created in the first place. I just it doesn't really make sense to me
to just say that well it's going to cause more work now. It's going to cause more weak points. I mean it's not coming out of the city's pocket. It's under warranty. So the construction company has to come out and fix it on their dollar to my understanding. Um so again
I I think that it's going to be easier on the city and the engineer department public works to just have the construction company come out. Otherwise, we're going to be back here in the spring asking for whatever permits or we whatever we need to to just rip the curb out and do it ourselves and and pay the company to do
it because we want to make sure that the the curb is done right. So, our driveway looks nice after spending however many thousands of dollars we're spending to to to get it done. So, >> yep. You know, I I agree with that. The
So, what Jason's saying is the curb is the roadway is on top of the curb and in order to take the curb out, you have to cut out some of the roadway and then you have a patch in the road right in front of your house which arguably may look
worse and will perform worse. Um, I I I want to ask and dig and see if there is a way that it can be done without damaging the road for that small section like that. Um, so I can dig on that. I I really think there is some sort of solution, even if it's creative, to at least make it look cosmetically better
without damaging the roadway. Um, so I will look into that myself more. Um, sometimes engineers have, no offense, Jason, but they have this way set in their in their mind that has to be this way, but sometimes you have to get creative. So, I'll look into that for you. Uh, no guarantees. Um, it shouldn't
have been done like that in the first place, but unfortunately sometimes you just have stuff that doesn't go right. So, >> and the company that we hired more than willing to to come out and they seem pretty optimistic that they could fix this. So, if it comes down to that, um
>> I would love to talk to them. Can you >> Yeah, look, I have to get their information, but then I I I mean, they talked about just straight cutting it and and replacing it. I'm not obviously a construction person, um so I can't repeat exactly what they said, but they
seem very like willing and open at least to get it fixed. So, I just I think that the construction company that the city hired >> should also be willing and open to fix it as well. I don't think it's a a massive issue. And so, like you said, I agree if it has to be cosmetic.
>> Just want to fix. That's it. That's what we were told. We were told that it was going to be fixed while they were redoing the road. So, coming back later and saying it can't be fixed now because they didn't get it done in time or do it when they were supposed to just doesn't really sit right with me. Yep. Um,
integrity wise, like I just think someone needs to come out and at least at the very least look at it and give us some options on what we can do or the city approves us to redo the curb ourselves and fix it if that's what it has to come down to. Um, but I really hope it doesn't and then just follow up
on the speed monitoring and the and conducting that in the spring as well. Um, I just like an update on when that's going to happen and when we're going to revisit that. I know May, June, and that's probably when all the the curb issues will arise as well. So, if we can
follow up in the spring for both issues, that probably make the most sense because we're not going to be able to do anything obviously now that it's winter. And that's all. So, I appreciate your guys' time. >> Sounds good. Thank you for coming in and bringing that to our attention. I appreciate it.
>> All right. Uh, item K2, ordinance to consider amending chapter 160 fees. Miss Wood, Josie, uh, chapter 160. We're on item K2, fees or Nick, sorry. >> Good evening, mayor and members of
council. uh for the amendment of chapter 160. Those changes are what we proposed and discussed at the previous cow meeting. Is there any questions on any of that? Any discussion you'd like to have?
>> No, I think it's good to bring it back up to snuff with what we have to pay. So, >> looks good. >> Jeff Nick. >> Yep. I'm fine. Good. Motion to approve.
>> Second. >> Motion to approve by council member Heman. Second by council member Homegrren. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. 40. >> Uh item K3, resolution to consider approving the cannabis micro business registration for Limeline LLC. Miss
Wood. >> Good evening, mayor and council. So we did have this brought at the last council meeting, but there was an address change. So, we just wanted to clear u be clear and reflective of their registration with the city. So, it's as was before and everything is um submitted and complete and with the
correct address and just for clarity, it's at 703 East Duel Boulevard Northeast. Thank you. >> Sounds good. There seems to be a lot of address issues over on that street. Do you know why? >> Um I'm not sure if there was an address issue. It just was a different suite
within >> Okay. >> Um a building. >> Okay. Because I know the police building, we've had some issues with that and other other addresses on that street it seems like like Google doesn't recognize and you end up searching for something and it gives you the wrong address for other businesses too. Has
that been addressed on Google with our police department? >> Finally. >> Oh, but notified. >> Still not repaired. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Addressed numerous times and not repaired. Yes. >> By multiple people and his department myself. I've gone out there and done the take a picture of the street sign, take
a picture of the building from the street, submitted all that to Google, and it still has not been updated. >> All right. Well, we could use the community's help getting the address change on Google if everybody goes on Google and says, "Hey, this is the address." So, that's actually corrected. I think Google needs to hear everybody.
So, all righty. Well, that's good to hear and thanks for the clarification. Any other questions on the resolution to consider approving the cannabis micro business registration? Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion to approve by Council Member Homegrren. Second by Council Member
Peterson. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries 40. Uh let's go with the new item K4, which is consent agenda L2. Uh approving
the extension for the MOA uh of MOA for take-home squads. So, I just had a couple questions uh for Travis on this. Um, how has that been going? I assume everybody's pretty pleased with it. Have you uh maybe caught any more maintenance issues or
have you noticed any positives from it like what we had discussed? >> Yeah, nothing that numerically, but I really would like to actually it was something to take a look at. I think sometime next year to take a time frame, you know, like it be like January
through June to last January through something like that to see. I think we're double doubling down on maintenance savings with the public works piece as well as with that. So I think there's going to be I mean just from what we can kind of anecotally see
there's going to there should be a cost savings unless something catastrophic you know an engine goes or something like that but gen but generically we're u with that take-home squad it's streamlined with the maintenance and the preventative maintenance more so and
with public works it's it's a it's a good program and we we should pull some numbers when we can actually you know get a good six-month time frame of the same year this year what versus before that to see how that transpires because I think there'll be a realized savings
on that for both of those. They were doubling down with the take-home squad at the main end and as well as a public works maintenance. It's going well. >> Okay. And I know uh last time we had talked a little bit about you know the do we have a mileage for everybody or just outside
15 miles. Are we still at three officers that are outside 15 miles or we added another one that's outside 15? Yeah, but that we so there's one currently and the other one I would believe is 15 miles but is not it hasn't uh
>> doesn't have a vehicle >> just because of the >> stage of their employment. We'll just say time frame. >> Okay. Have they been okay with, you know, paying for the mileage on that? Is that agreeable with them? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Are you guys still okay with uh
the charging for the mileage outside of 15? Do you want to do more miles, less miles, the same? What are you guys' thoughts? I know we had a lot of discussion on this last time. So, >> if everybody was happy with the way it went last year, let's just keep it the same. No complaints.
>> That seems to be working on both sides. >> Okay. >> I ask a quick question about the maintenance. So, are you having public works do like oil change and prevent >> everything? So, I don't remember the date, but let's just say prior to this program, we did
the public works. Um, they do some of the oil changes when they had time and minor maintenance, but anything that was major maintenance would be brought to a dealership or a mechanic shop. And the problem that we'd run into with that is
I, as a non- mechanic police chief, get the work order from a >> sales place. I really don't have a lot of leeway in saying, well, let's not do this one because I don't think it's necessary, right? Because I'm not a certified
mechanic. Therefore, if then we don't do that repair, it comes down and say there's an accident and that repair is not even part of the problem. there's a liability issue with that, right? So now all of our repairs go over to public works to their certified mechanic. If it
needs to go out, they take care of that. Then they can go through that same list as a certified mechanic and decide what's necessary, what can they do themselves, what can we push off till the next time. So that's the change. And there's significant cost savings in just
having that filter, an actual certified mechanic to filter that out. But yeah, they're to answer your question. Yeah, they're doing a lot >> a lot of the maintenance. >> I was just wondering what budget we can start taking 50 gallon barrels of oil out of because we should be buying that in bulk as much as we do. I know that.
>> Yeah. How's that been going, Josh? With having to take over the PD squad stuff. >> I think it's been going good. >> Okay. >> I think they're getting uh maintenance more or service more regularly too that way. And um the bulk oil thing, we we do
buy oil in bulk. We only have so many tanks. So, and the problem is so many vehicles take different oils nowadays that where do you store all that oil? If I could add in too, um, as Chief Myers has stated with the savings, we're
seeing that a lot um, in the PD side of it, but now with being able to, excuse me, add in more, um, equipment to the mechanic bay, the savings is just going to be for every department that had utilizes vehicles and equipment. So, it's just going to keep going and growing.
>> I'm excited to not sign the checks for the tire mounting and balancing when you guys get that mounter and balancer. I'm excited for that one. That's that's going to be a good a good addition for public works. Any other questions on that? All right. So, we will enter I'll
entertain a motion to approve that then. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion to approve by council member homegrren. Second by council member Peterson. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries 40. Uh thank you Travis and Josh. Uh next we will move on to resolution to
approve the 2025 audit engagement letter. I so this is just a little bit of an update I guess with uh and a little communication with me and Nick. Uh so preliminary audit discussions are happening and I had a conversation with finance director Soulberg and Abdo about the possibility of uh preparing the
financial reporting documents within the city staff uh rather than paying ABDO to do that during their audit. uh the audit consultant preparing the documents for us is generally the only finding of issue that they have in our entire audit. Um so I'd like to try and clean that up if we can. Uh basically means
the audit company prepares our financial uh final final financial documents for reporting rather than our finance director. Uh this is not at all uncommon for cities to pay the consultant to do it. Um but Mr. Soulberg has may be interested in doing something like that.
Uh there are some benefits to him doing that uh himself. there's obviously be the cost savings of not paying a consultant, but he would also have like a better understanding of what goes into all of this and and every year where we're where our standing is. Um, so I just thought that was something that we could potentially look into um to try
and clean up the audit and save some money at the same time. Uh, I don't know if uh Mr. Soulberg had heard back from Abdo about what that cost is or if he has any more insight on that and maybe if you want to talk about, you know, what benefit it would have to you to doing it versus having them do it.
Yeah. So I can touch on all that quick. So the rough estimate that I got back from our auditors is in our total audit cost, the preparation of the financial statements is about3 to $4,000 of that cost. So some benefits of potentially
bringing the financial statements in house are that I'm just seeing everything from the beginning the audit to the end of the audit. I'm the one that's doing all the final pulling for all of that information. I will say that putting together financial statements and just getting
everything formatted and prepared is a big undertaking and not necessarily something that I see myself having time for in the near future. So definitely not something for the 2025 audit and probably something that's not very realistic for the 2026 audit just as
we're currently staffed and what time we have as a finance department to take on that. I will say too in talking with our audit partner, there is potential for that finding still to be there. Even if we are preparing our own financials,
they may have some material audit adjustments that they're still making for certain items that if we have not prepared that information ourselves and are still relying on the auditors for those adjustments that that may still cause us to have that audit finding,
too. So there may be some savings there with the preparation, but that may still end up being an audit finding that we would have at the end of that time, too. So it'd be something that we would really have to work with them on to see where we'd get and see if that would be something that we'd be able to clear up
either way, too. So just a little update there. I don't know if you guys had a chance to read through the engagement letter at all or if you had any other questions on it. >> Yeah, thank you for the update. you know, it's just something to keep in mind in the back of our minds for the next couple years. We'll see, you know,
in March or April when they come back with the audit, you'll see that finding that, you know, we pay them to prepare the financial documents and that's really the only finding we ever have as a negative in our audit. So, you guys have any questions on the engagement letter or anything else with the audit?
All right. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve the 2025 audit engagement letter. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Homegrren. Second by council member Heman. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion
carries 40. Uh next we'll go to resolution to approve a contract of police record services. Uh so I just had a a couple questions with that. Um where does that I assume that money comes out of the general fund um to cover that expense.
Yeah, you can answer that. But just so if you read that memo, we're short the second person who was on the same thing. Um that cost savings for not employing that person until after this time is from
Soulberg was uh $1,300 a week. So if it's uh you know three weeks or four three weeks you know it's $3,900 cost savings which is uh you know it's saving at the end of the day it's going to be
bene savings anyway whether it's three or four weeks >> that's why I put it in there just so that it's not >> there's not an additional cost to the city because we're realizing that savings for the employee that we're missing if that makes sense. >> Sure. But you you still have that other
question you can ask. >> No, that was my question because in here it doesn't say anything about >> Yeah, I mean I could have wrote but it's we're saving that $1,300 that's the wage and benefit for that employee that we don't have that we're kind of contracting out for. Um that's why we
put that number in where it was just so it's it'll be either net zero or $1,300 savings. >> Okay. >> Depending on how many weeks it is. >> Well, sounds good. That's good to hear. And you know, she's great at her job. She was with us for a long time. So,
it's nice not to have to train. You don't worry about it. Just >> We don't have time to train. That's the problem. >> 100%. Well, that's good to hear. >> Any questions on that one? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion to approve by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Homegrren. All in favor say I.
>> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries 40. All right. Next would be uh consent agenda L6. So we can pick this conversation up from I guess committee of a whole. Uh we were discussing this
and um I think we got through most of it but I just had a a concern about um the earn sick and safe time and the I don't remember the name of the >> and mayor and councel I did uh speak too soon. I do have an email from the attorney about that language of the here.
>> So if I could read that. >> Okay. Yep. Um, he said that you can take the full sentence from the paragraph above and insert it where the word here is so it be clear. And here's what that sentence says. On the work site by a person working as an employee at the city or while on call and subject to
return to work. So we would insert that sentence in both locations of the word here. So then it's clear of exactly what they're saying. >> But would what does here legally suffice? He thought it did, but if you wanted to
be expanded, he said to use that full sentence. >> Okay. >> But yeah, he wrote this. So, >> sure. >> It's up to council if you'd like me to put in that whole sentence that says it's above in the other paragraph in reference. So, but >> what do you guys think on that one?
>> Fine clarifying it. >> I think that's clarify. We already got the answer, so might as well do it so that way it doesn't happen down the road where someone needs to clarify again. >> Okay. >> I think so. >> Okay. >> I think it'd be good. >> I'm good with that. That sounds good. >> Okay. So,
>> so the other changes that were discussed, I'll just >> Sure. Yep. >> briefly highlight those just so we have them here. Um was in section 2.10 add in that notification will be um given to the city council to inform them. >> Yep. >> And then on section 11.07 07 in both
locations. Add in language with council approval in both of those paragraphs in addition to the language already there. >> Yep. >> Um and then the last item would be then discussing the 11.02 ESST. >> Correct. >> All right. I did pull up the redline
policy from 2023 uh that had that language that was the 48 hours that you're just you had brought up um that became effective in January 1, 2024. That's when those hours were added in. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. But now that we have as was required by the state now after their I don't know maybe third iteration of their pol of their law um is that our sick leave whole bank our whole policy of sick leave needs to be able to be used as
ESST as well. >> Sure. Yeah. So the first iteration of this was like you said there's been a bunch of different iterations and we kind of had to adopt a policy to match their originally original policy that they had. But now that they've they've smoothed it out or however you want to
look at it, they've they're probably set more at what it's going to be. And I think that our personnel policy needs to match that. And I think, you know, the original intent of the original intent of the ESST was to make sure that everybody got the minimum hours of 48 hours of earned sick and safe time,
which our city offers 96 hours um already for sick leave acrruel. So, the way it's written here right now, um it allows for um substantially more sick time. Uh I think the intent was to make sure that
we provided the 96 hours and then have the 48 hours or all of it, whatever state dictates as an easier earn sick and safetime um usage. And I think that was the intent of it. I don't think the intent was to stack the two. Um, so I just I guess I' had like to have a
discussion on that or I mean maybe next year we talk about that, but I I would like to have a discussion on it because uh the intent of the law was to make sure that everybody had the bare minimum, but we already give more than the bare minimum and you know adding the the usage of that to make it easier for
employees to our original 96 hours I think is most of the benefit. So that's that's the direction I'm thinking on it. Um, I don't know if you guys considered that that section or Yep. Go ahead. >> Just to be clear, um, it would be the full-time employees, not the part-time.
So I think instead of potentially of course a piece of which way you do it but instead of reducing the sick leave you potentially would not give additional ESST time to full-time employees because they have sick time but the ESST would be has to remain in
effect for part-time employees the way that it's >> acred based upon hours worked. >> Okay. Yeah. And that's fine. I just want I just want it to be a little more clear on what exactly is going on there and how that works and have everybody whole
um from where they were before this. Nobody's losing hours or anything like that and they're actually getting more flexibility with us adopting or being forced to adopt the ESST acrruel. Um but we just want everybody to be whole of what they were before if that makes sense. So that section I think could use
some changing. Um, I don't know how to word that, but maybe I could work or we could work with city staff uh to figure out how to to do that. But I don't know what you guys had thoughts on that for >> I guess I would just go with it for this year so we can actually
um put in some thought and maybe Could we adopt this and then consider it at the next meeting? Again, >> you can adopt this and have discussions at any time for personal policy. The only thing that affects it uh to talk
about it as soon as the next meeting is that we're under a status quo because of a forming union and we're no we're not able to change terms of employment um because it would affect those employees and they need to be able to go through the bargaining process. Um, but you'd be able to do so and have the discussion
following that when the union contracts are settled. >> Okay. So, we couldn't we couldn't do anything with it now anyways. >> You could talk about it, but you can't make any changes to reduce any kind of terms of employment. >> Sure, no problem.
So maybe we'll just have a future discussion and see, you know, maybe just clarifying what this means exactly because it is confusing, you know, and it's been a huge struggle for the ESST and the paid sick and safetime stuff and just concerning for a lot of people. So
all right, any other questions with the personnel policy? >> No. None. All right, then I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. >> We have to approve this this meeting though.
>> What happens if we don't approve at this meeting? >> We are still need to we still need to follow state and federal laws that if those changes are in here. Um if we didn't approve it, any of the LMC language that was recommended by them
would not be in effect. That'd be like the one earlier um 2.0 2.10. >> Um so I mean we still do have to follow state and federal laws. It's just this lines it all out within um for all
employees very easily of what >> what they have to abide by I guess. >> So maybe it would make sense. I mean we have to follow the laws anyways. Maybe it would make sense to come back at another meeting and actually make sure we're 100% sure of what's passed. Is
that your intent, George, or what you're asking? >> I mean, you can discuss it at any time if you want to. If it gets passed tonight and you want to bring it back up as long as why we're under the status quo, no terms of employment change for right for that certain period of time,
you're able to change it after that. >> Okay. Well, there's a motion on the floor. Uh, is there a second >> hearing? None. Uh, motion fails. Are there any other motions or discussion to consider?
>> Motion to table till next city council. >> I'll second that. >> Motion to table by commissioner council member Peterson. Second by council member Heman. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries 4. Thank you. Good discussion, guys. So, make sure um
whenever we talk about this that you read it over and have, you know, an idea of what you want all that to say. All right, let's get back to the city council here. So, next would be uh item K4 if I'm not
mistaken or I think it's like K7 or K8 now. Resolution to consider adopting the final budget items. >> That would be K8 now. >> K8. Okay. So, uh, Mr. Nick, go for it. >> Uh, good evening, mayor and members of
council. So, we have, uh, two different budgets proposed tonight that are set in front of you. The first proposal has a about a $3.8 million levy that includes
a 5.05% total levy increase from 2025 to 2026. The second proposed levy has a 0% increase from 2025 to 2026. Kind of jumping down my memo a little bit, just giving you an update on the
changes in those. The only difference in these two budgets is the amount of money that we are pulling from fund balance. With the first, we planning on using about $212,000 of fund balance to cover our operating expenses for the general fund. With the
second proposed budget, it's going to be 395,000. How that affects our unreserved fund balance compared to our expenditures is we would be at about a 50.87% unreserved fund balance with option one.
That would decrease down to a 47.20% for the second proposed budget. Some other things to consider with this is the effect that it'll have going forward for 2027's budget and how we will be able to get
back to a budget neutral budget, which is where we're hoping to be, where we're not using fund balance to cover our current operating expenditures. This is the best way for us to keep our tax levy rate as flat as possible so that we don't have those large increases going
into the future. I prepared some information for what that would look like for changes in 2027. With the second option, just to get our tax levy back to where we're not pulling any amount from fund balance for 2027,
we would have a projected levy increase of 10.93%. Compared to if we go with the first option of the 5.05% 5% increase in 26. We would only need to increase our total tax levy by 5.06%
to make up that 212,000 of fund balance use that we are having in 2026. This also affects our capital projects since we have set amounts that we are planning on increasing those funds by to continue to do our long-term planning.
When adding that in with the second proposed budget, we'd have a 12.74% increase in total levy needed from 26 to 27 to cover those increases along with the general fund levy. With the first proposed budget,
including those capital project fund increases, we'd be looking at a 6.37% increase to include those along with getting our budget back to neutral. Just wanted to let you guys know kind of the long-term effects of using large
amounts of fund balance all at the same time. Using those reserves is good to help kind of steady out this levy. We just don't want to get to the point where we're running that fund balance so low that now we are not only trying to catch up to get to zero, but also
needing to make up some of that fund balance reserve too. that can kind of get us in situations where we're going to need larger increases going forward. So, just want you guys to consider that when you're considering the 2026 budget.
>> Sure. So, those numbers are assuming no growth, no economic property sales, which we had just discussed tonight in another meeting. Uh they're considering no cuts and kind of the worst case scenarios. Um, >> yep. Those numbers also don't include
any increases to wages or steps or potential insurance bumps and all of that too. Okay. That's at baseline. Every expense line item stays the same. >> Sure. And we right now our our um fund balance
policy says between uh 30% and 70%. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And we would be even at 47% we'd be pretty much smack dab in the middle. >> Yeah. we'd be right around there. It's just as those expenses increase, even if
we're keeping our amount rolling to fund balance at zero, that percent goes down, assuming we have expenditures slowly growing, as we'd expect with a growing city. So, there's just that to consider, too, that the the slower that we're pulling from those
reserves or the less that we're pulling from those reserves lets us kind of keep that flat. With what we've kind of worked on in our longterm plan, it is to try and stay roughly around that five to six to 7% increase for our tax levy
going forward. Obviously, with a change in what we would do for 2026, that kind of throws out of whack what our plan would be in the future for some of that, too. This kind of goes along with any projected increases in positioning or
staffing that kind of was projected when those plans were put together, too. So just can potentially make those long-term conversations a little more difficult. >> So if if we were hypothetically say the EDA sale, if we were to take that and
put it in the general fund, um right now to go from a 5% levy to a neutral levy, a 0% levy, it's roughly 182,000. The EDA sale would be 165,000 of that. So you would only see, you know, those 10% numbers that you had mentioned. It would
be still be around that 5% after considering the sale of that property. Correct. >> Yep. But we do have to factor in that that's going to be a one-time funding course that EDA. We're not going to >> see that happening year-over-year. So we do have to consider that the expenses that we're currently covering are
operating expenses that we're anticipating into 26 and 27 and beyond. So using one-time money can be useful to help control that. I just don't want to be over reliant on that funding that may not be there in future years too.
>> Sure. And then in in 2029 we have um our last debt falling off. Uh how many hundreds of thousands or what's the number on that? Because you know right now we have you know 26 we're setting uh 27 28 29 those will be falling off. So
what's the the number on that? because that'll play a factor in um being able to ease in 27 and 28 as well. >> Yeah. So that'll be a little over $200,000 when that debt rolls off that will no longer be. >> So every year, you know, this year if if
we're doing what I what I hope we may consider doing is taking that EDA$165,000 putting in the general fund after 2029, we'll have roughly $200,000 off of our budget every year. So that basically tells you that, you know, you would said it's onetime money, but if you look at
the debt falling off, you're saving that much money every single year. The only years that you're going to have to float are 27 and 28. So we would be basically neutral in 29. So 27 and 28, we're going to have, you know, the 5% increase potentially if we can't find areas to
cut, if we can't, you know, save money in PD, if we can't save money in public works and other ways. So I guess I'm just looking at, you know, 27 to 28. Yeah, you might see a 5% increase like you said, but I think in 29 and from there on you're going to actually see a decrease again because you have a $200,000 debt coming off. Debt is the
killer of all success of every financial institution, everything. So, I'm very excited about that and I I think it's uh looking very up for the city. But that's uh my questions I had. What other questions you guys have? I think growth can offset the the two years we gota we
get we need to get through and I have hopes that the economy is going to do well in the next two years. I mean I'm with your plan. Yeah. Let's roll the 165 into general offset it. Keep it at 0% this year
and let's see how next year goes. And I will mention we do have $1,66,000 in a liquor store fund balance. I think you'd said approximately 300,000 that's earmarked already. Obviously, you have when you have a liquor store, you have, you know, capital liquor that you have to purchase, so that's what the fund
balance is for. So there's there's that cushion there, too. Um, granted, we want to use some of that for a liquor store sign. Um, so you don't want to, you know, take money from that, and this doesn't take money from that, but that's always a good backup plan, too. And that's the point of the liquor store is to ease tax burden on our taxpayers,
period. Exactly. That's the way I look at it, too. >> And with the liquor store, we do have to consider kind of where sales trends are going. >> Correct. >> I I know >> to make sure that we're not over reliant on that transfer to because if that amount does need to be reduced, tax
dollars is the amount that we'll need to go up to offset that also. So, want to be we may have to be a little more conservative with kind of our liquor store projections going forward, too. So that may be something that we need to monitor going into 26 and going forward too.
>> I think Keith had expected a roughly 2% decrease in sales this year. Correct. So if the liquor store profit just call it 500,000. 2% of 500,000 is $10,000. I think while that's obviously you don't want that to be a bigger snowball that
you know it ends up being you lose $100,000. But if if you're seeing a $10,000 decrease, I really don't think that's a huge impact on a small, you know, 2% on a $500,000. It's not a huge amount of money, but >> might be able to offset that with that
sign. We need >> a sign. Yeah. >> You know, and and maybe instead of seeing a decrease, we'll see a increase. So, >> Jeeoff, what do you think? Well, as long as everything lines up like we we want it to, I don't have a
problem doing the larger or option two. Nick, I like option two. I I don't have open main things. I'm pretty uh the economy is kind of I'm not
as optimistic as you. So, I want to go that way, but it's just the unknown, but I don't know. >> Okay. Do you guys have any other questions for Nick? I mean, maybe run more numbers by
>> than percent. What is the actual balance amount at currently >> for our >> not percentage, but straight dollars >> for our unreserved fund balance? Let me pull that for you. Is it easy for you to give us a fund
balance that we have in every account? >> I can give you that information for through the end of 2024 through our audited financials. So currently our unassigned fund balance and general fund is just over $3 million,
which at the end of 2024 was 63% of our next year's budgeted expenditures. >> Yeah. And we had known going into that, I think Jeff and Mike had a a bet on that, you know, that we were going to overshoot where we wanted to be at. And we we had talked about wanting to be at
50%. And this this gets us pretty close to 50%. You know, um so now is the time that $3 million is our taxpayers's money. It's sitting in account. We have it for the the unpredictable moments and we have it when maybe they're getting hit harder with other taxes and that's
kind of the point of the fund balance. Um so it's there. It's a good thing to have, you know, and use it when you can, but you have to be responsible, too. So Jeff, did you have any other questions? Nick George. >> I'll entertain a motion if anybody's
wants to make a motion on any of these or all of these or however you want to do it. >> Oh, one more thing to highlight on the enterprise fund budget. The there's a big increase in the water budget expenditures there. That is for well
number four. We were anticipating that getting completed in 2025. construction on that got backed up. So, we're going to see most of that expense actually happen in 2026. So, there's $2 million essentially that was rolled from 25 into 26 to cover that project.
>> But that will be coming out of the water fund. >> Yep. Out of the water fund and something that we already had planned. It's just when we're paying for it, it's now one year later than when we originally planned to. >> And they're they're honoring the same price. So, correct. >> Yep. They're locked into the uh bids
that we awarded back in May. >> Okay. So, instead of paying for it this year, we're paying for it next year on the >> Y. >> If you look at the budget, so we have a savings of 2 million this year and next year we'll expend 2 million more. So, it's it's net wash. >> Mhm. >> Except we got interest on that 2
million. >> We're actually saving money. >> Correct. >> We're making money on the interest of that 2 million. Yep. Correct. Um, I I guess I'll make a motion to roll that 165 into the general,
keep the levy at zero, and take the difference out of the general. >> So, that' be option two. >> That'd be option two. Well, we didn't. >> Yeah. And I will say with the 165 since that sale's not finalized and all that,
we'll leave that >> right >> for a later date once we've kind of worked through all that and can have more discussion. >> That's right. So it can't can't roll it over. We're just going to >> Yeah. >> Option one or option two. Just kind of >> option two. >> Yeah. >> So there's a motion on the floor for
option number two. >> Second. >> Second. Uh motion on the floor from uh Council Member Heman. Second from Council Member Peterson for option two. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries 4. Good job, guys. Good questions.
Uh item K5, resolution to consider authorizing a fourth reduction in letter of credit for Fairway Greens North, third edition. >> The K9 now >> or K9, sorry. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um before you is the fourth uh letter of
credit reduction for Fairway Greens North, third edition. Um not a lot left on this development um almost nearing the end, just the final lift of workhorse and a few other items. And so we're reducing it pretty
substantially um until it gets into that warranty period. and um engineer looked over this pretty um heavily as we were in discussions with the um the developer with this, but
yes, we recommend approval. >> Sure. >> Yeah, I see Jason, you're involved and did a good analysis uh to make sure we're protected as a city. Uh would this likely be the last letter of credit reduction they asked for? Would you expect or will we see another one, do you think?
Uh, well, I mean, when we move to the actual two-year warranty, they're going to be making a change to however they want to have us hold that money. But, okay. So, that >> once that work course is down or punch list is addressed, everything's good in the spring here or whenever they get that done.
>> There'll be, you know, one more round to release the rest of what's being held and go into that warranty all of the project being held at 10% for the two years. >> Sure. And this is typical of developments that you see in cities.
It's all typical. Yep. Any other questions? I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion to approve by myself, second by council member Homegrren. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries 40.
I believe we have the consent agenda now. Correct me if I'm wrong. Any questions or concerns on the consent agenda that we didn't already talk about? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion to approve from council member Homegrren. Second from council member
Peterson. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries. 40. >> Uh other communications. Did you guys have any questions on any of the uh building inspector report, code report, police report, or engineering project status reports?
All right, then I will entertain a motion to go into close session. Uh, city administrator annual performance review pursuant to Minnesota statutes 13D.05 subdivision 3, section A. >> Motion. >> Second.
>> Motion by council member Homegrren, second by council member Hemer to go into close session. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries 40. We are going into close session. Every time I didn't