Are we Hello, Christine. Are we good? Okay. Good evening, everyone. It is September 22nd, 2025, 5:30 p.m. I am Mayor Shelley Carlson. The Morid City Council welcomes public input on issues listed on the agenda of general community interest,
time and council permitting. Speakers will be limited to three minutes each. If you'd like to address the council during the meeting, please fill out a form provided by the city clerk and we will call you up during the citizens to address council item on the agenda. You'll need to state your name and if you are a Morhead resident. If your comments were submitted to the clerk
prior to the meeting via email or phone, those comments will be entered into record. For more information on participation, please visit the council meetings page on the city of Morhead website at morheadmn.gov. We, the Morhead City Council, collectively and with gratitude acknowledge the sacred land the city of Morhead is built upon. We acknowledge
the people who have resided here for generations and recognize that the spirit of the Dakota Ojiway Mati and all indigenous commun communities permeates this land. With that, could I get a roll call, please? Ryan Nelson here. Nicole Matson here. Heather Nissmeer here. Emily Moore here. Deb White here.
Lisa Borggan here. Sebastian McDougall here. Chuck Hendrickson present. Mayor Shelley Carlson here. And for those who are able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. All right. And city manager Molly, do we have any amendments? There are no amendments to the agenda, mayor.
Okay. So, moving on to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Move to approve. Nissa Meyer. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. Moving
on to recognitions and presentations. The first is um our more heart recognition. I'll turn it over to Miss Lisa Bod. Thank you, Mayor Carlson and members of the city council. We have a more heart recognition tonight. The more heart
selection committee is choosing to recognize Zachary Guber for his exceptional courage and selflessness and his commitment to protecting our community. Um Zachary, a Minnesota state trooper, was nominated by Trisha Felt for an
incident that took place one year ago and it is um he exhibited bravery, risking his own life to save a local teenager in a malfunctioning car. Trisha notes in her uh recognition of Zach, he stayed calm, cool, and collected when
helping this young man, which undoubtedly saved his life. As the runaway car reached speeds over a 100 miles an hour, Zach remained calm and collected, instructing the teenager to crash into the back of his squad car,
risking his own safety, but slowing both cars to a halt. It is without a doubt that our community is a safer place with Zach in it. Zach is a Morehead High graduate, Ghostbuds, and he's a Morehead resident. Uh, the city of Morehead
celebrates and thanks Zach for his valiant efforts, his composure and courage. Continue to make Morehead and surrounding communities a safer place. Um, his family's with him tonight and it's his parents anniversary today. So, that's kind of exciting, too. So,
congratulations, Zach, and thanks for all that you do. kind of weird having you all at my back, but uh I just like to thank uh you know all my partners, my family um supporting me through everything, the journey and
uh thank you guys for what you do. So, congratulations, Zach, and happy anniversary to your parents. Um, I also was just told by council member White that her mom told her that there is a story about this incident in the current issue of Reader's Digest. So, people all
across the country are reading about this incident. So, thank you for your service and for being willing to um put yourself in that situation to save another. All right, moving on to the next uh uh presentation. I'll turn it again over to
Miss Lee Bodie. Lots to celebrate tonight. Um we wanted to bring forward another um wonderful donation to the um the loop project, the Morehead Public Library and Community Center. This one specifically directed
to the Spark Center for Entrepreneurship. Um this one is from Goldmark Commercial Real Estate. And I'll ask Brett uh Saladin with Goldmark to come forward. He's um at the council meeting tonight to share a donation of
$6,000 to the loop. And um we want to make sure that we're recognizing these donors and their contributions and the businesses that support. He's also offered um Goldmark has offered to participate in some training and opportunities as the the programming
begins on the Spark Center for Entrepreneurship. So, wanted to recognize him and give the council members an opportunity to express some gratitude to another wonderful local business that is investing in the loop. Uh, good evening everybody. My name is
Brett Saladin. If I knew that I'd be speaking on behalf of Goldmark Commercial Real Estate, I would have done my hair for you guys. So, uh, no, obviously sincerely appreciate the, uh, the partnership with the with the city. uh looking looking forward to that uh for future partnerships and then of
course um you know uh we're excited for the the development of the loop. So thank you very much for for having us. And I forgot to mention that this donation came through a um an ask um by council member Moore. So, um, we really
appreciate her being, um, part of this wonderful donation. And next on the agenda is um a proclamation. Um and I just want to first take a moment to recognize where this proclamation started from. Um I
want to thank Chuck I was thinking you were sitting over here. Chuck Kaylor um whose story really inspired me to bring the attention to citizenship um week here in the city of Morehead. Chuck um has called Morehead home for the last 50
years and um went to MSUM. Uh so go go Dragons. Uh and nearly a year ago, I think it was in November of last year, he reached out to me to ask if there was a way he could take his oath of citizenship here in Morehead, his home,
instead of traveling to the Twin Cities. And although Chuck and I worked diligently over the last 10 11 months um to make that possible, he ultimately ended up having to take his oath in Brooklyn Center earlier this year. But in spite of not being able to fulfill
that request, it didn't spark an important thought that we should take time as a community to recognize and celebrate all who make the life-changing decision to become a US citizen. And my hope is that next year at this time we're able to invite all who have become citizens in the last year to come
together perhaps lead us in a pledge of allegiance and be cit celebrated for that uh arduous choice and and commitment because I know it's a process to become a US citizen. So Chuck, I want to thank you to your dedication to Morehead um for choosing to make this
community your home and for inspiring us to honor every new citizen's journey. And with that, I will read the proclamation. So whereas September 17th marks the anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution in 1787, a historic document that established a framework
for our government and the foundation for the rights and freedoms of American citizens. And whereas since 1952, the US Congress has designated this date as a time to commemorate American citizenship and reflect on the privileges, rights, and responsibilities that come with it.
And whereas citizenship day is an opportunity for both naturalized and nativeorn citizens to renew their commitment to the core values of our nation, including liberty, justice, and the rule of law. And whereas our community is enriched by the contributions of all its residents,
including those who have recently become new Americans and chosen to make our city their home. And whereas Constitution Week is also observed from September 17th to September 23rd, providing an opportunity for educational and civic groups to study the Constitution. Now, therefore, I Shelley
Carlson, mayor of the city of Morehead, do proclaim se September 17, 2025 as Constitution Day and Citizenship Citizenship Day in the week of September September 20 September 17th through the 23rd, 2025 as Constitution week. So
Chuck, if you'll want to come to the podium and say a few words, I will give you this proplation. Um, I was not expecting to say anything either, so this is quite a I I just want to say I've lived in Morehead since 1975.
I wanted uh my family and friends to be able to be here for that event. But um since they couldn't after 50 years of deciding, I finally made the took the oath. And uh it was exciting because
the uh judge told us that just because we're citizens doesn't mean we can sit on the couch now. Now we have to be part of the community. And I think that's something that I'm proud of to be part of this community. Thank you.
And once again, Chuck, congratulations and welcome to the United States as as as a citizen, even though you've been here for 50 plus years. And I don't think you're going to have any issues voting cuz he was saying before he was I'm going to be the only 71year-old who was like how do I do
this? Be plenty of people there to help. So all right moving on to the approval of the minutes from September 8th 2025. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?
So move Nelson second more. Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none. And all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. All right, moving on to citizens to address the council. We have two individuals who would like to address
the council. Uh the first person is Kevin Salsbury. Uh Kevin, if you want to make your way to the podium, um rules are pretty simple here. How we run citizens to address the council. You'll have three minutes to address the council. Need to state your full name. If you're a resident of Morehead, this
very highly technical contraption will be green when your three minutes are in play. And when it's red, you will need to wrap it up and stop. Got it. And Christina, if you want to start as soon as he starts talking. Thank you. Okay. Uh, my name is Kevin Salsbury. I'm a resident of Morehead. I'm also a member of the Morehead Fire Department
and a trustee for the Morehead Firefighters Union. You might want to lean a little bit closer to the microphone, too. Oh, yeah. Let's get this up here. Sorry. Uh, first I'd like to thank the council for the opportunity to speak and for showing support and considering these staffing
levels for the 2026 budget. Speaking of staffing levels for the 26 budget, I'd like to specifically speak on the need to add six staff in 2026. Um, just for some background, I was hired 17 years ago in anticipation of adding a third station and getting and
growing the fire department. And this was based on a 2007 strategic plan uh that was completed and had community buyin at the time, but for whatever reason uh nothing materialized on that. In those 17 years, the city has spent taxpayer money on a number of studies
that point to the same conclusion that the Morehead Fire Department needs to grow more staff and we need at least a third station to be able to provide response coverage that meets national standards. I doubt that most citizens in the city know this, but a majority of the days in
two 2025 will have only two trucks in in the city to respond. Um that's two trucks for a population of 45 46,000 people. And a lot of times the calls that we get come in twos, threes, fours, and calls in a very quick simultaneous
measure. Um the math just doesn't math. Um, this is a formula for poor public safety outcomes. If we're able to hire six in 2026, we will not only put a third truck, our ladder truck, uh, on the road, and that would give us three
frontline engines to serve the city, but those trucks would also be properly staffed so that when we do get a call, we have the proper amount of people to work efficiently and quickly and safely mostly. This is really a need and not a want. Um, many of you have run on the
message that public safety is of highest priority and myself and my brothers and sisters here tonight are just asking you to make good on that promise and support staffing six in 2026. Thank you. Thank you. Um, the next individual is
Andrew Bushaw and there you are. Andrew, if you want to come up and state your name if you're Morehead resident. Sure. and you'll have your three minutes. Andrew Busha. I am a Morehead resident and I am uh here on behalf of the Northern Plains United Labor Council and
the West Area Labor Council. Uh we're unions. Uh we're a federation of unions here in Morehead in the area and we just wanted to I'm also a community member and so to me I sat in the meeting the workg group meeting where we talked about um you know what what the levels
were like and I was really proud of seeing the council members really grab onto this and discuss this and come to a good solution of having six and six and I think that I'm looking forward to seeing the council moving on that um because frankly I care a lot about
safety and I care about a lot the safety of my community, but I also care a lot about the safety of our workforce. You know, um, every year I help with the workers memorial day event and that's where we read the names of the workers who've died in North Dakota and
Minnesota on the job. And thankfully Minnesota has a little better track record, but North Dakota's got a pretty poor track record of that. And I read, you know, frequently the the issues that happen, not only to the people that were the victims of a workplace incident, but
the people that are responding to that. And so, if we're going to keep growing the way we're growing, we really need to make sure that we're keeping not only our whole community safe, but also the people that we employ. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And for those who have not
been to a council meeting where we have citizens dress council, it's not an opportunity to have a Q&A back and forth. It's an opportunity for the council to hear from the people. Um and we take that information in and then we just proceed on with our our business
meeting. So, um with that, we have a uh we have a public hearing. Um so I'm going to turn this over to Christy Lashesky. Um, but I first need to open the public hearing to consider adoption for special assessments for the 2024
unpaid administrative penalties and abatements. I have a motion to open the public hearing. So move Nissa Meyer. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. And hearing is now
open to the public. And I'll turn it over to Miss Lasheski. Good evening. The request before council tonight is to hold a public hearing and staff is recommending approval of the special assessments related to the unpaid administrative penalties and other maintenance costs from 2024. Um
these costs relate to property maintenance, rental registration, tree removals, unfounded alarms, and sanitation buildings. There were 90 properties within the initial notice. The assessments allow for a one-year repayment with the exception of petitioned tree removals, which are a
five-year repayment. As it relates to property maintenance related assessments, the city operates an administrative citation and penalty um system which was approved by the Klay County District Court in 2004 and has been utilized uh by the city since 2005.
The process includes that a complaint is verified by a code compliance inspector. If the complaint is verified, a letter or a placard is placed on the property with a compliance timeline. I will note that on average around 95% of um homeowners or owners of the property do
comply uh without any follow-up from us. Um but if a violation is not corrected and it's snow or grass related, we have a contractor that would abate um that and the abatement costs would also be included within the fine. If it's not snow or grass related, additional fines
may apply $100 a day up to $2,000 a year and it could also result in the abatement of whatever the issue is. Before we get to the hearing tonight, there are multiple invoices and at least two reminders of the penalties that are set. Um, I also want to note that our goal is
compliance. So, if someone gets a letter or a placard and they are for whatever reason having difficulties meeting the timeline, uh, we please reach out um, and we will adjust those timelines to, um, get compliance without penalty.
Following the publication, we had a number of invoices that were either adjusted or paid and removed from the resolution as outlined in the council report. And then another one that we ask be removed tonight is the $100 fee for 132523rd Street South. So if following the
hearing, council does approve the resolution. Uh the request would be to approve the special assessments related to unpaid administrative penalties or other maintenance actions from 2024 with the removal of 1325 23rd Street South.
Okay. And we do have one individual who does does want to speak during the public hearing portion of this agenda item. Um William Peterson or Patterson, you want to come to the podium? Um, if you want to state your name. William Patterson and I'm a Morehead
resident. Uh, this is regarding uh vehicles that I was working on in my driveway. As a summary of facts, at the time of the inspection, there are two vehicles in my driveway. Vehicle number one, which my brother's car been building for about 5 to six years. When the inspector had called me, I told him
it'd be two to three weeks uh when it would be leaving. And it was only one week later than I promised that it was removed. Uh, vehicle number two, uh, he had stated that this was a race car. We're not supposed to have race cars in our driveway. It, in fact, is not a race car. This is a vehicle I've been
building myself for for years. Uh, it's a restoration project. The legal title is currently tied up in a court uh, partition case, but I have over 60,000 receipts proving my investment in restoring and owning the car. It is not abandoned or junk. It is of high value collector's vehicle under active
restoration. The reason for the objection, the nuance issue, the inspector noted, is no longer present. The RX7 is not an abandoned nuance. Uh, it is legally disputed by valuable but valuable vehicle undergoing
restoration. The $200 assessment is therefore unfair and unnecessary. I request respectfully ask that the city council remove the wave or wave the $200 assessment. Thank you, sir. Mhm. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak to this agenda
item? Again, any members of the public who wish to speak to this item? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing portion of this agenda item. So moved. Oh, go ahead. So moved.
Second. A motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. All right. Um, any discussion from council members? Um,
and if not, I would be entertaining a motion for 9B. Council member White. Thank you, Mayor. I was just wondering if I could ask Christie a question. Usually, this is the time when I um look back to see how many of these were
repeat offenders from previous years. And so my first question is just I I couldn't do that because we've changed the online platform and I couldn't get last year's packet, but can you talk a little bit about maybe what you're seeing and improvements that we've made that maybe cut down on the number of
repeat offenders because that's been an you know it's a you mentioned it's a small number um but it beyond just even in any year a small number some of those people are year after year after year and so talk about what we're doing about that. Well, we did have um a few properties uh one in particular that was
declared a dangerous building and demolished. Uh we had a few other properties that we had been seen. Um some neglect happened in the past by the owners that have since changed hands and are now new property owners. Um and they are taking steps to address the issues. Um and then we also have been utilizing
GIS as an additional tool. Um we're now tracking um any properties that get more than two calls per calendar year. Um we're trying to be uh a little bit more um watchful of those um so that the neighbors don't feel like they're
constantly having to call us. Um so if we do see a property that is seeing a lot of maintenance calls um we are trying to track those, work with the owners. Uh we do have a couple more properties that we're seeing um uh one in particular the owners years ago have
passed away. Um and it's been a vacant property ever since that time. um that is going now through the tax forfeit pro uh process through Klay County and the state of Minnesota. Um so we continue to see some of these properties that are oftentimes on the list um either changing ownership or going through
different processes. Um we also now have a lead code compliance technician Allan who's with me tonight um and he uh one of the things that he does is really focus in on those properties that are seeing recurring problems and trying to address them. Thank you. And I think my other question
would be in regard to we had a a citizen who um it sounds like may have rectified the issue and I don't know if you have any input on that if if we've been able to verify that that's been taken care of and perhaps could be removed then so we
did complete the inspection on the inspection date and it hadn't been addressed at that time. Um, I would recommend for anyone that's either doing restoration on vehicles or something of that sort where there may be some dismantling of vehicles. Um, that can be done inside of a garage. It just can't
be done in a driveway without getting a letter from us if we do get a complaint about it. In that case, too, I noticed it was five years. Um, and that's something just for residents to know. I think sometimes folks get very frustrated and they see something that's ongoing and they don't
know that if we don't know about it then there's not really anything that we can do. So even just in terms of informing citizens if they do see ongoing um nuisance issues in their neighborhood they need to let us know so that we can work at at working with the property
owners to get those things rectified. Right. Absolutely. And I'll just add to that that um all calls or emails that we get remain confidential. Any other questions from council members? Council Oh. See none, I would entertain a motion to
approve 9B. So moved. Second. Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank
you. Moving on to the second public hearing to consider sale of city-owned land located at 118 Fifth Street South. Um, do I have a motion to open the public hearing? Second. Motion and a sec. A motion by Nery, a
second by Moore. Uh, any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. We are now in a public hearing and I will call on Mr. Derek Le Point to address 9C. Oh, okay. All right. Assistant City
Manager Mike Gre. Uh, thank you, Mayor and City Council. Um, yes. Tonight, uh, we're holding a public hearing to consider the sale of, uh, city- owned land. Um, in this case, uh, the subject of this public hearing is the current Morehead, uh, public
library. Uh, the current library was constructed in 1962, and, uh, a new library and community center is, uh, currently under construction and expected to be open the spring of of next year. Uh once uh that facility is
vacated, the current library building and parking lot will be available for occupancy by uh a new owner. Uh so therefore, we published notice of this hearing and are holding this hearing to allow us to consider uh sale uh offers.
Uh the proceeds from the sale uh shall be placed in the building improvement fund to address uh capital facility needs. All right. Thank you. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak to this item?
Again, any members of the public who wish to speak to this agenda item? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close this agenda item from public hearing. Second, Nissa Meyer. Motion by Hendrickson, second by Niss Mayor. Um any discussion? Seeing none, all those
in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. We are out of public hearing. Any questions for Assistant City Manager Mike Greets? If not, I would entertain a motion to
approve 11A, which would be the resolution to approve the sale of the city- owned land located at 118 Fifth Street South. I'll move to Hendendrickson. Second. Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I.
I. Any opposed? That motion carries. Right. I don't know, Mr. the point if you needed to come up or not or Nope. Nope. Nope. That was it. You're good.
Great job, Derek. You're a man of so many words. So, all right. And now we will move on to 18A, the 2026 preliminary budget and tax levy. Um, and I will turn this over to
our finance director, Jennica Flanigan. All right. Good evening, mayor and council members. Uh, tonight we have two resolutions for you to consider. Um, one is to set the preliminary levy for the city of Morehead and the other to set the levy for the economic development
authority. both which require uh city council approval. If approved, it will allow the finance department to certify the preliminary levy amount to the county by the September 30th deadline as mandated by state law. It will also set the maximum amount that residents could be assessed in the upcoming budget
cycle. It's important for residents to know that while the preliminary levy and tax rate amount as adopted by the mayor and city council can be decreased, but it cannot be increased at the final adoption of the budget, which will occur at the December 8th meeting.
The budget process for the city began in May and focused on four key principles. Collaboration, serving the community, supporting employees, and preparing a balanced budget. Department heads had about eight weeks to prepare their proposed budgets for 2026. The finance and city manager staff
then met with each department to review the details of their proposal. Additionally, a series of workshops were held to discuss various budget related topics. We greatly appreciate the dedication and effort of city staff, department heads, and the council throughout this process.
The budget preparation focused on two key priorities for our levy funds, uh, which were wages and benefits and public safety staffing. This year, the city's tax base grew by 5.04% with an estimated taxable market value
of 4.36 billion for taxes payable in 2026. Uh, this is similar to last year's growth which was at 5.2%. Uh the market values are then converted to tax capacity using some statutory uh tax rates to determine the tax revenue
available to the city of Morehead. The additional property tax revenue from new growth and construction is estimated at 1.34 million for 2026 and the city is required to levy this amount to the
county in order to capture this growth. Well, we'll begin our discussion by reviewing their revenue sources for the levy funds. The city funds that rely on property tax revenue as a source include the general fund or park fund, debt
service fund, and the library fund. There are four main categories of funding. property tax, local government aid from the state of Minnesota, transfers from our utility funds, and in all um other revenue category, which includes federal and state funds, uh
grants, fees, and charges. Uh the state of Minnesota has certified to the city that Morehead will receive an additional $19,472 in local government aid in 2026, representing a 23% increase. The
transfers in from city um enterprise funds is showing a preliminary increase of $172,000 and the other revenue category is increasing by just under $25,000. Uh this is attributed to higher permit revenue and interest income.
The total additional revenue expected from these three sources amounts to $396,134 representing only a8% increase from the previous year. The budget relies heavily on property tax revenue for balancing after
considering other revenue sources. Shown on this slide is the property tax amount that was certified for 2025. Various scenarios will be discussed tonight to determine the amount that we will be levied for the 2026 budget. Moving on to the preliminary
expenditures. The preliminary base budget for 2026 totals 51,544,664 reflecting an increase of approximately 2.6 million or 5.2% compared to our 2025 budget. The majority of this increase
over 2.3 million is attributed to rising wages and benefits. This includes cost of living adjustments as outlined in union agreements, step increases for the permanent employees, an increase to the health insurance premiums, and the addition of the paid Minnesota uh the
Minnesota paid leave. Two notable operational adjustments are reflected in the 2026 budget. There's an increase of $282,377 in IT equipment and software subscriptions. uh that driven by rising subscription costs and the
implementation of new software tools throughout the city. You'll also see a decrease of about $290,000 in our radio weapons and police equipment replacement. This is due to uh sufficient funding in our internal service fund for 2026. This fund
supports the replacement of items such as radios, body warn cams, tasers, and other essential public safety equipment. Three preliminary expenditure scenarios for the 2026 budget are being presented this evening. Each building on the base
budget that we previously reviewed. In scenario one, the total budget is 51,834,529. This scenario includes the base budget plus the following additions. a training coordinator position in the fire department
um with the through the application of a safer grant. If awarded, three firefighters would be added with the city being responsible for 25% of their wages in 2026. Um there's estimated startup costs for adding these four new positions as well
as modifications that would be needed at fire station 1 to accommodate the expanded staffing. Scenario two, the total budget is at 52,58,123. This scenario includes the base budget of the city, adding a training
coordinator position in the fire department, the addition of three firefighter positions, which would be fully funded by the city of Morhead, paying for 100% of their wages and benefits, startup costs for adding four new positions, and then the modifications that would also be
necessary to fire station one. And then uh scenario three, the total budget is 52,177,655. This expanded scenario includes the training coordinator position. Um the application for the safer grant to add
three firefighters which would be funded um the city would be funding 25% of the wages. The addition of three additional firefighter positions fully funded by the city. startup costs for adding seven new positions and the fire station one
modifications to accommodate expanded staffing. This chart outlines the estimated property tax revenue increases and corresponding tax rate changes required to support each of the 2026 expenditure scenarios.
The base budget would require a 9% increase in property tax revenue and an estimated tax rate change of 3.16%. Scenario one requires a 10.2% increase in property tax revenue, estimated tax rate change of 4.27%.
Scenario two requires 11.1% increase in property tax revenue and an estimated tax rate change of 5.13. And scenario three uh would require an 11.6% increase in property tax revenue with an estimated tax rate change of
5.58%. To provide some context, the following graph illustrates the estimated property tax rate changes over the last eight years for the city of Morehead. In four of those years, the tax rate remained relatively stable, hovering around that 3% mark. Uh 2021 saw a notable notably
low increase and this was largely due to the financial impacts of CO 19. A catch-up adjustment postcoid occurred in 2022 resulting in a 5% increase to rebalance the funding needs. And 2025 was a union contract negotiation year
which also also contributed to a tax rate increase of approximately 5%. Uh tonight's uh decision does not impact the property tax burden for commercial and industrial properties within the city of Morehead. These properties benefit from a disparity reduction
credit which caps their property tax obligation at 1.6% of taxable market value. As a result, their property taxes will only change if there is a change in market value, not due to any increases in the city's tax rate. The estimated uh monthly property tax
impact on a median valued home in Morehead uh for each of the scenarios is as followed. Uh scenario one, there would see an increase of $7.95 per month. Scenario two, um an increase of $955
per month and scenario three, an increase of $10.39 per month. Um, as outlined at the beginning of the presentation, the council is asked to take action on the following two items. Number one, to adopt a resolution setting the maximum property tax levy
collectible in 2026. And number two, adopt a resolution approving the preliminary levy for the economic development authority in the amount of $780,000857 as approved by the EDA board on August 4th. The final budget adoption is scheduled for the December 8th council
meeting. Uh, with that I will stand for comments and questions. Thank you. Thank you, Jennica. I also wanted to thank you for your extra work um this weekend. Uh I know that the last seven years you haven't
necessarily had to do that when we before setting a preliminary budget. So I know you were working extra hard to put together all these various options. Um, with that, uh, looking to the council as far as what you would like to do. Council member, um, White and then
Council Member Borggan. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to first I I have a question, but I want to start by speaking out as strongly in support of scenario three. Um this is the scenario that most closely reflects the um agre the consensus that we had in
fact universal agreement at our last workshop um over what we where we wanted to proceed. And um for those in the audience just and and you know others to explain why we felt that that was important. Um the first scenario would
be one that relies completely on whether or not we get a safer grant. And while um I think it's great to apply for that, but there's also that possibility that we may not get it. And particularly this is we're relying on um federal funding
and that's kind of questionable this year. And I don't want to um go into this and then end up with nothing, you know. Um, the second one would be turning away the opportunity to apply for federal funding and having
everything come from local funding. And we felt like why would we want to leave that money on the table? Let's try to get it. And um hopefully we will, but we don't, again, there's no guarantee. And so having the ability to guarantee that we would have three positions that we
would fully fund at this point and then apply for the safer grant to see where we would end up and potentially get more positions after that um was something that I think a lot of us felt well clearly um everybody that was at the
workshop felt strongly that that was the direction to head. um thinking about what I've seen in my years as council, but I know um you know some of my other council members have been here even longer and they talked about we've talked about this need for a long time.
We are the fastest growing county outside of the Twin Cities and with that growth comes additional need and this is something that is so vital um looking at the safety of our community. We've talked a lot about public safety over the last few years of investing in our
law enforcement and now it's time to really look at helping out in our um fire department. And so um I think that's you know for me it's it's you know um feel very still feel very strongly that we should and I'll just
say my only question is that I wondered what happened to the in our um workshops we've talked about $20,000 for fire station 3 pre-esigned services and that's not in there and so I would want that to be added in because I again
letting people know we've got we get lots of questions people want to know when are you're going to move ahead with that third fire station. And to me, that's a small step, but it's an important step. Yep. And I can answer that one. Um, council member White. Um, so tonight, what was being presented is our levy
funds. So the with that fire station 3 um study, we are actually going to be using some one-time um public safety aid funding that we received from the state of Minnesota, which is in what's called the special revenue fund of the city of Morhead. So, it will be included within that budget um that will be approved um
in December. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I also recognize this is the ceiling. And you know, with some of these again, when we're looking at what you have in here, um those the first three would be fully funded, guaranteed
to be fully funded. The others with the safer grant, we don't know. And so that it could go down, but this is the ceiling. And then we'll see what happens if we get that funding. And those folks we that would be hired potentially late next year, then probably it would be
less than what we see here in this this proposal. Correct. Thank you. Oh, okay. Yep. I was just going to say we would um as I understand it, the safer grant would be applied for um next year in 26. So yes, we wouldn't know until
sometime in 26 if we would receive those uh that if we would get that award and then be able to hire those three. So some of these additional expenses, it would we we know we wouldn't hire those people in January. And so if we're looking at some of the onboarding expenses and things like that, it's
likely that that would be less because it would be prrated. So what we're that we're you know what we're looking at what we actually would end up paying would probably be less than what's put into scenario three. the startup costs would likely be the same um regardless of what time they're hired on board, but
wages and benefits would be would be less. Yes. Great. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Uh Council Member Borggan, I have a question for the chief. So about the safer grant. So when would that application
happen? What is the likelihood that we would get that grant if you know that? And then what would the likelihood of getting that grant if we had already invested in three new firemen? Would they look at that and say, "Well, they
already paid for three new firemen. Why would we give them a grant to get three more?" So, those are my questions. Yes. Uh, good counsel member Borggan and the rest of the council members and mayor. Um, the safer grant program changes from year to year. A little bit of that is based on the program guidance
and funding that gets established um by FEMA and part of that also depends on other activities that occur at FEMA about when that um safer grant window actually opens. Um most traditionally it has opened in either January or February of each calendar year. Sometimes as
early as December and as late as this last year in June, but usually in January and February. um that the time frame for learning about acceptance of the grant usually occurs around May or June of that calendar year and then um those who are awarded a safer grant are
given 180 days to get those fire personnel on board and start working. Otherwise, they start the clock on the grant at 180 days out. If you onboard people sooner, that grant window will start as soon as you have the people on board for a three-year funding period. As far as the likelihood of the grant,
it's uh really hard to say. Um, we will be employing the uh services of a grant writer who has been successful in the last three safer grant awards that have been processed in the state of Minnesota and uh brings a lot of good skills and expertise in analyzing data uh and
demonstrating the need with the program guidance that we hope will be successful for us. And uh so far previous abilities to hire staff haven't really played a determining factor in the grant awards. seems to be more in demonstrating the the need and the compliance with the
program guidance. So, what needs is the safer grant trying to address this particular fiscal year and we're going off of last year's safer grant and assuming the program would go forward with very little changes next year, but that remains to be seen. Okay. Thank you. All right.
I would I'd just like to make a comment about what council member White said. I was at the council workshop, too. I I beg to differ. I don't think we were 100. We're at the last one. Oh, I missed the last one. Well, the one before that I was at and I think we
Okay. Well, I don't think anyone on the council is against public safety. I don't think anyone on the council doesn't want the city of Morehead to have the right number of firefighters. I think that we all value our public safety, the firefighters and the police.
I mean, I just don't think that we can have an argument about that. I am concerned about the costs. I'm concerned about adding that many new personnel in one year. That seems like it might be arduous on the system. I mean, you've
got to, you know, who's going to train these people? Where are you going to put them all? It's kind of going to be a shock to the system. So, it seems to me that perhaps doing it in a wave of three and three might be easier for the department as well as for the taxpayer.
So, I'm I'm still I'm still not 100% sure that adding seven people in one year is really the right way to go from a fiscally responsible way to do things. Um, I don't know which one of you had
your hands up first, so you guys can decide who would like to speak first. Thank you, Council Member um Matson. Um, I uh would like to express my concern over um city council members not
receiving the items that are displayed in scenario 1, 2, and three. These are different um scenarios than we received earlier um even though they had been requested earlier of the city manager. And so I want to acknowledge that this is new and we might have a lot of
opportunity for discussion here. Um, I'm hoping um our director of HR can speak up to the startup for new personnel or maybe you'll defer to Jennica. I'm not sure. I I feel like it might be an HR question. I'm really concerned that this cost wasn't factored in in our previous
uh scenarios that had three um safer grant or three uh city funded or city levy funded that's a tongue twister um positions in it. Like this is a new line. We also didn't have fire station one modifications which I'll follow up
with whomever wants to take that second but first I'd like to address the startup for new personnel costs and I'd like some more details about what that is. So I don't know who the chief gets that straw. Okay. Council member Nissmeer mayor and
council members I can give you a better breakdown of what those details are. Absolutely. Um, so I'll do them in some broad categories with a few examples and we can get into even more detail if we like. So, um, the the first step would be going through the prehire process for
new individuals. Um, there's $720 involved with medical exams, background check, and psychological exams. And then at the point of hire, we need to um purchase additional person personal protective equipment for each new member that comes on board. So, we typically
start with utilizing our older turnout gear to get them through initial training periods as there's typically about a threemonth delivery, sometimes as as few as six weeks to get gear on board. And with turnout pants, helmet and shield, boots, gloves, SCBA face piece and bag, um high visibility
jackets for working out incident scenes, we have about $7,500 worth of expenses involved with that. Um, we also have a list of uniform items uh for regular wear that totals up to $8,651 between various uniforms, shirts and
pants and so forth. Um, and another $62 in linens for the bedding for overnight. Um, we provide enough numeric pager for signaling per ISO at $350. Uh and then over the course of the first
year of employment um our folks will depending on their background have to go through firefighter one and two training. Um if they already have that they may have to go through EMT training and most people come in without driver operator certification. Um that's just a little
shy of $1,000 for those trainings and certifications. And those are just the textbooks and the materials. And at the completion of their one year, we will typically issue a class A uniform for our new firefighters um at a cost of approximately $588
all together. And these are uh contractually required um purchases that in the union contract the city must supply these. Um I don't know that anybody would fight uh um fight um firefighters and fighting gear.
Um but the um PPE that firefighters wear um I just wasn't sure how um this added line new was arrived at to be added into the levy funds. I'm not sure typically how onboarding staff is funded. I haven't seen it before in my previous
five years and so that's my reason for asking and I appreciate you going into detail because I assumed there was driver training. I don't know a lot of people that drive around a firetruck just for funsies or have that sort of certification and the EMT training like a variety of things. And so I appreciate
you breaking that down, but how is this typically um is this typically a levy fund or is this another fund that we address that? And I I I yes I don't know if that's a if that's a chief question or if that's a finance question. I can help with that one. So the fire
department is all funded in our general fund which is a levy fund. Um, so yes, anytime there would be new staff added within the fire department, which is in the general fund, then those startup costs would be included in the operating department of that fund.
Okay. And so if we haven't seen that typically, so I'm thinking of we hired a public safety uh person to clear snow. Again, I think um CDL's I have no other classes of driver's license knowledge. It's very shallow, my knowledge. So, uh,
but I anticipate that with each, um, employee we bring on, there's training, whether it's IT, uh, administrative service stuff or, um, vehicle training and a variety of things. Is that typically handled um, in this way that we add it and we have a line item out
for personnel onboarding or startup costs? U, yep. for each new position that would be added. I mean, it's different within every department, but with, you know, like the police department, um, additional training, they've got more equipment, vehicles, things that would run through other funds, but yeah, in
any situation, there'd be like IT costs as well that would be added for for new staff that were on boarding. Okay. I I just don't recall that being there for um the public safety officers that were in the um police department originally that were added out. I remember like taking out specific things
when we added body cams or new uh vehicle cameras, those sorts of things. I remember being specifically um rolled out as a line item. And so this was new and so I was just concerned that we didn't have this added in and originally at that workshop I had suggested again
not being the math wizard that you are um it was having the 20 uh or 298,000 added to the 75,000. Um, and so having the station three um coming out of other funds, I appreciate you addressing that.
That was on my list as well, but I'm just not um sure where the fire station one modifications and the startup personnel costs came from. And so I'm not sure if fire station one modifications is something that you can speak to as well or is that Yeah, you're right. We did. Yep, we did
get some estimates on what that would cost, you know, through that workshop. The question I think was brought up with, you know, where where do these people go? Yes, that was me. I said, I don't want them sleeping in the streets or in trucks. And I mean, it was humorous, but that is true. I want them to be honestly um treated equitably um
for their positions. Yes. So, yeah, in talking with the chief and then with our facilities um manager, we did have to come up with an estimate for what it would cost to um to make some modifications at the fire stations to accommodate the additional staffing. And so, that's the extra bedrooms and
bedding that was highlighted. Yes. Okay. Yep. and Jeff can speak to that too. Okay. Thank you. Yes. And just to give a summary of what those modifications would be, we have five dorm rooms in the uh semib level of the fire station. And we have an open
area between our stairwells and bathrooms that right now is a is a locker area where we've got lockers for all of the employees. Um we'll be splitting those locker banks into three bank lockers that we'll place in each one of the five dorm rooms. And we'll be taking that space and adding in walls,
uh, doorways, um, outlets per code, uh, fire alarm annunciators, and a couple other miscellaneous things. We have to bring the, uh, radio speakers from the station learning system into those spaces and then provide the base furniture that will be able to add two more, um, dorm bedroom spaces in that previous locker space to accommodate the
one or two additional staff members we're talking about. Excellent. I also appreciate hearing that fire station 3's uh planning um that initial um chunk of money just needed to work up a plan is still being accommodated for. I also appreciate the
work that went into thinking about where people are going to sleep and stay and having that equitable. Now people may who have been following along with the fire station uh may um acknowledge that there was just some construction but this was completely separate construction. And this was not to their
um uh private space, their cooking space, their dorm space previously. Correct. Correct. So, uh the previous um benefits that we've had are these are completely different. We're not just redoing what we already redid. That is correct. Okay. Thank you.
You're welcome, Council Member Matson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um a couple I have a few questions um and comments, I guess. Um, I this is my first time doing this. As I say in these meetings, I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't
listen to me. So, um, I'm just going to ask questions and and maybe they're good questions, maybe they're bad. I don't know what I'm doing. Um, question. So, so this is I have one of these is the last workshop and one of these is the workshop before we had scenarios and um,
in neither of these is the startup for new personnel. And I understand I understand where that like the the breakdown of the money. I guess my question is if that's the typical way of doing this, why why are we just getting this now when we've had a couple of other um presentations of of spreadsheets with scenarios without that
in there? Um yes, typically we when we're at the workshops we um you know we're proposing the wages and benefits for those increased personnel and then you know if there is desire at the council level to add the staff then we would typically look at you know those startup costs. Um
I think when we were talking the fire there is there is more startup costs for adding a firefighter than there are for you know some of the other departments of the city. So, we did want to get that to you guys specifically, you know, in that line item rather than, you know, a lot of times we just kind of combine it
in with their operating budget numbers. So, it it's maybe a little little hidden in there. Um, but so we did want to spell those out just so you could see could see that um that there are uh some significant costs for those for adding those fire staff.
Okay. Thank you. One one time costs for each one of them. Yeah. For Yes. And so the 105 it looks like there's 20,000 for each of the um each of the firefighters and then um how much? So I
Yeah. So we're estimating about $15,000 per per additional staff added. So we've got a training coordinator that is being requested to be added and then uh three firefighters or up to six firefighters. So a total of seven in scenario in
scenarios three we would be adding seven staff. Oh okay. Thank you. That's I just wasn't clear on whether the training coordinator was had the same yes startup cost as as a firefighter. Okay. Yep. Um thank you. Let's see what else did I have a question about that hasn't
already been covered. Um so just in terms of um the cost I mean sure I agree that there it is more expensive to hire six than three for sure but if we are getting a grant for 75% of the salaries that takes
up a lot of the cost and I I was not a math major I was a history major so maybe check my math but um the difference per month on a the medium medium median home value um between scenario three and scenario four is 84 cents a month and that comes to $108 a
year. So to me, the the the amount the cost of that relative to what we would get for scenario 3, I think it's well worth that a little bit extra cost because I don't think um I think we've all at least in the last workshop, what I what I got out of it was that we are
all clear that, you know, we we want to fund more firefighters and we don't want those of us that were in that meeting. I don't want to speak for everyone and if if if you have changed your mind since then please, you know, let us know. But what I got or if I'm mischaracterizing what I got of out of that is that we
want to we want more. We want to fund more firefighters. We don't want to only rely on the grant match because that is not there's no guarantees in a grant match. And so if we're going to assuming that that that's how we feel and we we decide we want to go with scenario two,
it's just it's such a small amount more in terms of like the cost. Um I I do take the fiscal responsibility very seriously, but in terms of um what we get for that 84 cents a month, that's like a force multiplier. It really does
make so much fiscal sense to me um because that 84 cents is getting us um funding that grant match for 75% for two years and and I think that's a good deal. Thank you. Uh, council member um McDougall and then I don't know if
council member Nelson had his hand up. So, council member McDougall and council member Nelson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I don't know if this is going to be for Jennica or or uh the chief, but if I do remember if we apply for that grant, but we also budget for the three firefighters, the
likelihood of getting that grant is very significantly reduced. Correct. was kind of like an all or none if I if I remember correctly. Um, yeah, I would say that is not necessarily the case. No. Um, it depends on how that how that need is being demonstrated in the form of the grant
and how closely we're meeting the grant criteria. So, okay. And then, uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but scenario one is what was presented us presented to us in the workshop which came from city staff and chief. Correct. That is correct.
No, that is not correct. We have never seen this scenario one before. Could have swore we saw scenario one was our first one we s had where we applied for the grant but if we would wait to see if we would get the grant before we would hire the uh three firefighters
that that's how that was initially proposed to us. That is incorrect. So I want to make sure that we have a very civil council meeting. So, if um one council member has a floor, allow that council member to have the floor and then if you want to be called on, just raise your hand.
My apologies, Madame Mayor, and my apologies to council member McDougall. I can say the original first proposal brought forth did not have the additional costs, startup costs for the firefighter firefighters there, but the the principles of a training coordinator, three firefighters, um and
uh the $20,000 for the station location study were part of the original. Agreed. I I get that. But the very first one that was was brought to us was to have one office individual trainer, three firefighters, and we apply for the the grant and that's how we would try to pay for those three um firefighters.
Correct. That's what was initially brought to us. Yes. Correct. Okay. I I understand the different additional costs and how that came up. That's what I was that's what I was making clarity on. I think like it's been well said, we all want more firefighters and our EMS
people and everyone that does that here. We want to give them as much staff as they need and there is a need for that. At the same time, I think some of our my my at least messaging got mixed up where I'm thinking, hey, we could budget for
the three apply for the grant that would help us increase our staff right away. But if it's an all or none right away, who are we to at the same time go above city staff and what you originally asked for? You asked for four, one office, three firefighters, and now we're saying, "Hey, we're going to give you
seven." To me, that's overstepping our bounds. You guys are the experts. You you deliver what we need to vote on and what you think the city needs. And I think that's where we should be sitting at. Uh, Council Member Nelson, and then Council Member White.
Thank you, Mayor. Um, this might be a question for Jennica. Sorry I'm making you go back and forth or maybe Chief Wallen or city manager Molly, but um, can someone uh explain or tell me or
tell us um, sorry, what happens if uh, we apply for the safer grant and we get denied on the safer grant? Then what options do we have um, in 2026? If we if we uh vote in the scenario number one
and the safer grant you um apply for the safer grant and it gets denied, what options do you have? I will just say if nobody's jumping in, the council at any time during the year can do a budget adjustment. So we can look to the fund balance.
What What does that take, Dan? What is it? just a uh vote of the council, a resolution at the council. What action does that does that take? Obviously, we can't adjust the levy at that point, but so it come out of savings. Can you just explain that process a little bit to us?
Yeah. So, if we went that route, um once the if we are awarded the safer grant, it would need to come to council for approval. So, at the same time that you would be awarding that grant, we could ask for a budget adjustment that would then use the fund balance um within the
fund to cover that local share required in the grant, right? Scenario one already has that covered in the uh in there. So if the if um if we get denied the safer grant but
still want to proceed with three firefighters, we can do a budget adjustment for the full amount of the 200 and well it' be just short of the 300,000 in 2026 somewhere wherever that is midyear wherever that
lands. Um and then what what does that take? It just takes the vote of the council. What is there? Yep. We'll just take the vote of the council, too. Okay. And that just comes out of our That would come out of our general fund reserve. Yes. Yep.
Per city charter, it would be six votes. Okay. Thank you. So the uh um I'm kind of with uh it's obvious that um there's a number of different uh varying opinions here on council and if I could just speak to uh
um there might have been some mis uh interpretation on at some of the workshops on how uh the first scenario second scenario were going to were going to play out. Um I didn't uh for me I misunderstood the scenario too. um for a
little while. Uh I thought we were going to be able to apply for uh safer grant funds um in scenario 2. So I um part of that it'll be on me. I didn't understand that part until uh the most recent workshop. So
um looking at the safer grant, you know, I am not an expert on the safer grant. There's a lot of people in the room that probably there are wellversed in the safer grant more more than I am. If you look at this, um, just in the last year or two years, um, they have
the federal government, even though we're some concerns about the federal grants that have been cut back, they have funded that particular grant really well. Um, the hundreds of millions of dollars and a lot of it is actually going unused by
fire departments. Um, so, uh, there's fire departments that are, I will say, cities that are well off, the Bloomingtons and so forth of Minnesota. So, that, um, that was encouraging to know that an application
um, you know, would likely be would likely be approved, especially hearing Chief Wallen's comments about uh, the grant, the success of the grant uh, writer that we plan to uh, contract with uh, going forward. So, um, you know, I don't I don't want to miss out
on the, uh, federal grant money opportunity that's there, um, to fund this for prrated over the course of the three years. Obviously, we're committed to keep those firefighters on staff, you know, after those uh, after those three years. Um, the tough thing with uh
adding additional positions, and I'm not against adding um the the the with the safer grant, we talk about public safety, and just like last year, the year before, we added an extra uh and I always get the numbers mixed up. It was
either one or two police officers and we added a public works personnel. I think that was just last year. I'm looking over at city manager. That was last year. Um, and you got to look at this holistically across the city and if we just focus um,
you know, we were still working on the police department hiring crisis um, staffing numbers. We know that the numbers are down at the at the fire department trying to get back to or not back to um, up to those um, standards. Um, but we also want it at public works,
we want it in our community development, um, we want it in our IT, we want it in our GIS. And we want to just as the council, we want to look at this and go, how do we do this without uh, locking up or um, if you will
handcuffing our other departments in future years uh, because they also play a big part of public safety. um our just our folks uh in our IT staff, fire department, you need our IT staff. The police department needs our IT
staff. They need our GIS folks. They need our community development folks. So, um they all play a part of of public safety, too. So, we're looking at uh how do we get there? And you do it incrementally. Um it it's it's tough, but I just think
that we should do what we can to use these these federal this uh the federal grant money, the safer grant money. Um I don't want to take a chance of losing that. And if we need to do a budget adjustment, I think kind of what I'm hearing from the council members is if
they apply for the safer grant, if the fire department applies for it, doesn't get it, we then we go come back at the table and we consider doing a budget adjustment whether that's whatever time the grant thing comes back, but um and
see where we see where we go from there. So, I have Council Member White and then you guys are tying like Thank you, Mayor. Um, first I actually want first had raised my hand to um help
answer uh council member McDougall's questions because I know I was the one that led to some of that confusion at a few at two workshops ago because and um we had talked about what whether we could um make a commitment to say if we
don't get the safer grant we're going to cover it and we if we get it we could backfill in those positions and that was where we were told that No, that would actually, you know, they're not going to fund us if we say, well, we've already committed to it. So, I know that that that was the origin of that. So, I know
where that question was coming from. And so that was where then we talked about, okay, then do we just commit to say we're going to do three positions and not apply for the safer grant or do we say let's commit to the three positions and then apply for the safer grant and
then that would be additional potential for additional and um I think you know we know that those are going to be staggered no matter what because if we approve this budget then those three guaranteed positions those we can are
work working at recruiting those people much sooner well before we learn about the safer grant and so we'll have those positions we can fill those positions on board those folks and then have time for potentially new positions and I don't
think anybody here thinks we don't need those positions I mean we eventually if we're going to have a third fire stations we need people to staff those fire stations and so we need to start working towards that um And uh you know I appreciate council member uh um
Nelson's comments that obviously we do need to look across the city and um I don't think it's an eitheror. I think you know we need to take responsibility for looking at the needs of our city. This one is clearly a very pressing need. We've heard it from some of our
firefighters tonight and I'm not going to put our chief on the spot and ask him if he could take those if we were fortunate enough to get three additional positions. um wouldn't that be a nice problem to have, you know, and I and I
trust his leadership that I think that they can make that work. But um I think it's worth pursuing and we know we're going to need those people and let's not, you know, leave no stone unturned. Let's do everything we can to work at meeting the needs of our growing
community and keeping our citizens safe and healthy. Council member Nissa, Mayor, Council Member Matson, and Council Member Moore. Thank you. Um, Madame Mayor, uh, what I am hearing is that, uh, folks are really interested in sticking with the safer
grant. What I have heard from residents, from folks across our city, um, which I I'm saying to be abundantly clear, our tax levy rates directly tie to wages and to the number of staff that we have in
the city. Our staff are our number one asset in all departments. They make Morehead great. And I would like to acknowledge that waiting for the safer grant means that we have to wait until September potentially um to hear about those um grant funds and we would have
to wait 9 months for additional coverage for uh improved uh ladder truck and response time where we could have people in the pipeline and training. We need continuity um and safety in our um homes, in our apartment buildings, in
our businesses in Morehead. And I really think that response times and the amount of percentage of time that we have on ladder trucks and Chief Wellen, I don't know that you have them in your back pocket, but if you could after my uh comments come up and share those um that
those were shared at our first workshop where we discussed budget and I think those for me were very meaningful and that tied with things that I'm hearing from people who live in apartment buildings who have businesses who are really concerned at response times. They're concerned about road
construction and how our um public safety officers get around the city. And I got to tell you, we're working on road construction. Um but the benefit would also help those who um have home insurance. Like if we have more
firefighters, our home in our rating Oh, you can correct me on this one too. Um, Chief Wallen, our rating um, as a city, as a safe city would go down or improve. And so your home insurance would also go down, your insurance rates, which I think is something that people are like,
gh, I'm going to be paying an extra 84 cents a month or an extra $10 a month. And what is that going to get me? Well, it might actually benefit your health, your health insurance, your home insurance rates, your business insurance rates. And I think that that is something to acknowledge that waiting
just means we won't necessarily grant the grant. We won't necessarily have the people. And although council member Nelson has shared um an opportunity that we could go back and look at doing that, we are still behind. We are months behind where we could be, as council member White said, we could hire people
or start the hiring process um earlier. And I mean, uh, Chief Wallen mentioned that there are, uh, exams, uh, background checks, trainings. There's lots to do. So, I'm guessing it takes months, just like it takes months for people, um, training on any other job,
right? You have to run at least a full year to know what you're going to get in February versus October. And I think that that's really important to acknowledge that people uh, who are residents of Morehead are asking for this. They're asking for benefits because they see our firefighters who
are the first on the call when we have somebody who is potentially shot, stabbed, um or in a runaway car. Um you know, or a car on fire, that's better. Not a runaway car. You wouldn't chase them down the road. That's a different department. But I think the the
potential that we have here is to not miss out on funds, not miss out on hiring much needed staff. we have grown um exponentially and we're still growing. And I think part of our growing pains is being able to onboard staff and
doing it in a timely manner. And so I support scenario three because I believe I don't want to miss out on any opportunity. And that's the ceiling. Like we can't go higher, but we can go lower if we can figure out um magic pockets. Uh uh Jennica, our finance
director, mentioned the one-time funding um for special revenue funds for public safety to pay for that third station um prep work. I think that's outstanding and I would never think to look in that pocket or the crack of the couch and I think that that is really takes a great
deal of um innovation and support from our staff. And so I want to acknowledge that, but I also want to acknowledge the benefits of doing it sooner rather than later and looking at as a both end. And and we can do anything if we work together.
Thank you, Council Member Matson. And then can I get the stats from um Chief Wallen for me, please? Thanks. Thank you, Council Member Nissa Meyer, Council, and Mayor. Um back at the very first budget um workshop meeting that we had, I shared some statistics with you.
Uh one was that um part of the need we were justifying is we have over 200 buildings in the city of Morhead that are three stories or higher at this point in time. And u we've taken some initial steps this year to try to help address getting the ladder truck in service more frequently. We've adjusted our staffing model and where we are
putting people on apparatus to be able to uh based on a study of our staffing from the first six months of this year being able to bring the percentage of time we can have that ladder that ladder truck in service with a crew a minimal crew up to people and then working up to a crew of three depending on staffing levels that we brought our percentages
up from 13% to 41% by resigning some staff and the initial request to add additional three firefighters would bring that percentage up to 71% if um that performance holds. true into next year. Um, and I should clarify on um, ISO and insurance rates. Um, additional
staff and the improvement of our insurance rates or the is the ISO rating for the city would lead to improvements in commercial insurance rates but would not lead to improvement in residential rates. Once we get better than a class 6, then those rates stay the same on the residential side.
Thank you for that clarification. Did you have the percentage of time that we are currently able to operate a two or a threeperson truck? There was something like 17% of the time is what we're currently doing. And if we had this many more firefighters, we'd be
able to do it 40 something% and if we had, you know, six or a third station, we'd be able to be at like 80 something%. It will never be at 100%. And so I also acknowledge that. But do you have those um those uh steps of the
improvements and based the improvements that you made based on those numbers? I'd love to have those stats. Sure. Uh one breakdown I didn't have was when the ladder truck would be in service at two people and when it would be in service at three. So I was just doing stats on when we would have that
ladder company in service. Um but again um right now we were able to do 41% of the time that uh was projected to go up to 71% of the time if we had three firefighters and we were looking at the scenario if we were adding six and that would bring our percentage up to about 91% of the time that that company would
be in service. A certain percentage would be at two when our staffing is very low and staffing would be higher at other levels. That's that's a figure that that could be gathered and and delivered but I don't have that ready today. Nope. That's all right. I appreciate that. Thank you, Chief Wallen. Thank you.
Thank you. I think it's my turn. Uh I am um just I have I just took a couple of notes on a few things here. just I just want to um I don't know that it matters at this point, but one of the things like so this is the original workshop packet that we had with the original
spreadsheet and that um workshop packet that spreadsheet had um a request for firefighter FTE additions three at $298,126. So although throughout the course of the discussion we kind of went in circles like is are these are we asking for
fully funded are we asking for grant match um what's what was on the paper when I went in the door and what I thought we were doing was what we were asking for was um three FTE editions and then we had a whole other discussion in the next workshop and um that's a story for for later but
um I do um I do feel like I need to advocate for Oakport right Um, so about this time last year, I was out campaigning. I was out knocking doors and um there was someone on my list to talk to when I got to their address and there was like a burnedout
shell of a house in Oakport and um my understanding is that that it took I think 14 minutes for us to get to that house. Um I believe it there was some extenduating circumstances that maybe on a normal day it took longer than it than it might on a normal day. Um, but a kid
had to jump out of a second story window because there was no one there to put the fire out in time. And I am very concerned about Oakport and the amount of coverage that we have for Oakport in terms of um in terms of fire. It takes a long time. Even if um even just on a
normal day, it takes longer to get to Oakport than it does to get to, you know, anywhere else in this town. Although maybe far south is also a challenge, but we we are geographically really big. And so just to be able to staff more trucks would would offer more
protection for Oakport in particular. Um and for me that's really important because it was really brought home to me when I saw that what happens when the fire department cannot get to your house in time to put the fire out. It's really it's pretty scary stuff. And um I know
that no one is opposed to having more firefighters. I'm not I'm not saying that at all. Um, but I do just want to advocate for um making sure that we we do the best that we can for the most residents that we can. Thank you. And I think uh city manager
Molly had a response to one of your questions. Just a point about the original budget that had come out. There were the request the original request was three positions and the and the training coordinator. We put there was a decision made to put the full cost of the positions in there uh into that budget
presentation. So that's what was in the council workshop packet. Council member Moore. Okay, friends, I'm real disappointed. Oh, I'm kind of crushed actually. Um,
our country has been so divided and we walked out of that last workshop and it was so powerful. I was so energized. There was all this synergy. We were like on the same page. Every single one of us, everyone that was in that room said
that they supported adding three firefighters and going for the safer grant for three more. So, I don't know what happened between now and then, but super discouraging. Anyhow, just want to put that out there. All right. So, we were also warned that the police department's going to bring their
needs next year, but they graciously paused their request so that we could help lift up the fire department this year. We know we need a third fire station and we don't come close to meeting national standards. We're not close. I believe our firefighters deserve better. Our community deserves
better and our firefighters should not be secondass citizens of public safety. They deserve our respect and they deserve our investment. I took a look at our strategic plan, you guys. 1 A, not 1 B, not 1 C, 1A is the safety and
well-being of our community through proactive preparedness. Proactive. So, uh, this year, you may know, you may not know, the International Association of Firefighters, they did a report on our fire department. I don't know if any of you have kids in
school, but if you pull up Schoolology or Parent View or whatever it is and you check out your kids grades and your heart sinks and your stomach like it's a gut punch because you're seeing 50% and 40% and 20%, you're really hoping to see hundreds. I can tell you when I opened
up that report, it was devastating. And I am not blaming anybody in this room. I'm blaming everybody up here. So just just so you know, according to the National Fire Protection Association
standards for safety, right, our best percentage is 47.6% in this report. That's as close as we get. We have 0%, we have 20%.
We have so many standards we can't even meet. I I just have to say we we didn't miss the mark on the fire department. we are wildly off course. I think we need to do everything we absolutely can to protect our community and protect our
firefighters who put their lives on the line every day to protect us. So, scenario three is it for me. If you would like to see the report, it is available. I believe it's been sent to everyone at this table. Please read it.
Council member Moore. And then um I don't allow any outbursts during council meetings. So that will be the last time there will be any outbursts. If you choose to do that, you can go watch the council meeting out in the
lobby. Council member Borggan and I believe council member Hendrickson. So I just have a couple of items. I think the response times that the chief had given us have improved vastly and I
think they're good and they're getting better and I don't think anyone is saying we don't need more firefighters and no one is saying that public safety isn't a priority but I agree with council member Nelson that we have a lot of departments in the city and if we
staff seven people for one department in one year that is going to cause us to be unable to do anything in the next couple years for other departments. And I'm not really sure that that is the best use of our our our money. I want to look at
this tax rate change history. Can you pull that slide up? Because it's, you know, this discussion isn't just about public safety because I think we're all on the same page about public safety, but it's also our fiscal responsibility as council members to
determine this budget because it's a tax rate change that's going to affect everyone who lives in the city. And if you look at this chart, we try to stay around the three three-ish between three and four. We've
come up to five. Last year we were at five, 4.99. And I think all of these scenarios get us way over the three. And I think that's something that we also have to consider. So I don't I don't disagree
that we need more firefighters. I don't disagree that we need a third fire station, but I think that there is an incremental way of doing it. And when the chief and the city came to us with the original plan of three firefighters and a trainer, actually in the first
workshop, I said, could we see what it would cost for two firefighters and a trainer? That's not popular. So, okay, we threw that out. But I mean, it's just it's still we have a fiscal responsibility and we can get emotional.
We can talk about public safety, but we still it's the bottom line is we've got to be fiscally responsible for the money that the citizens of Morhead are looking at us to take care of. So, I'm not in favor of scenario number
three. Council member Hendrickson. And then Council Member Moore. Uh, thank you. M Carlson, I have a question. If we dip in reserves, that's not going to affect our bond rating, is it? It's Jennica.
Um, we have right now a very healthy reserve fund. Um, where the policy states in between the 40 and 60% is where we want that bond reserve to be. And we're right there in the middle, a little over 50%. Um, so with the the amount that you're talking here, there
shouldn't be any impact to dipping into reserves for for that. Okay. Thank you. And uh I I I think we need, you know, nobody's against more firefighters. I've seen the firefighters in action. I've witnessed
three crashes. And I don't know if that's because of me or what, but but the firefighters acted professional and they were there on the spot in about two minutes. So, I I really appreciate the work on that and actually I was help helping move debris out of the road so
and shoving glass. But I'm worried about the tax rate too, the change. I'm I don't like anything over 5% and we've got um you know, scenario two and three that are over 5%. And uh you know, families are starting
to struggle now. And 5.58% doesn't seem like a lot, but if you're living paycheck to paycheck and you can barely make the bills, that gets to be quite a bit. So that does worry me. Um so I'm not sure if scenario 3 is the
best choice. Like I said, we do need more firefighters and uh you know and they're great. But um the tax rate, anything under 5% I'm usually I'll go for and I mentioned that in the in the workshop too that I don't like anything over 5%. So that's my main concern with
this right now. Thanks. Okay. Council member Moore and then Council Member White. I would just like to call out that if we are concerned about being fiscally responsible, we should look at everything in our city,
not just this. I mean, we have a history of putting money, 6.2 million towards Romke. We added a six million city council chamber on our city hall. How much is our library? Is it 38
million now? It's our community center. I love all those things. I'm not opposed to those things. But we can't and in the same conversation say that we have concerns about being fiscally responsible and also support those same
projects that are magnitudes and magnitudes more amounts of money. It just it's it's laughable to say that it's about the money. That's my opinion. Council member White. Thank you, Mayor. Um I wanted to point
out that the idea that if we support these that we can't hire next year isn't backed up by history because just last year we did hire multiple positions in public safety for law enforcement because we knew that that was a great need. In fact, even in that year when we
approved new positions for law enforcement, we also when we heard that there was an additional there was also a need in in um public works, we decided to add that one on too because we needed more people to plow our streets because that's a
problem as well. And so I think again we support our workers, we support they are the backbone of the city. And so saying that we support firefighters doesn't mean we are not going to hire anybody in other departments next year. That's not
the history of what we have done. Um and you're right. I want to agree with council member Moore. I mean there are places we have talked about the fact that we have two public golf courses that lose money every year. But people don't want to talk about
eliminating one of them. I'd much rather have more firefighters than keep throwing money in a hole for two public golf courses. Council member Matson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just would like to make sure I understand what's
happening here as well. Um, tonight we are setting the ceiling. This is the the highest we can go this year in terms of like a a levy, a tax rate. We can we have more discussions to be had until December and then if I understand correctly December is when we actually
vote on the tax rate. Is that is that correct? Yeah. The Jennica is saying yes. So we're not deciding on anything over five tonight. We're deciding we can't go higher than whatever you know scenario three scenario two whatever we let's see 5.58 is scenario three. So
we're gonna if if we decided on scenario three tonight that's we're saying we can't go higher than 5.58. We're not committing. I don't think we're committing to what's in scenario three. We're just saying we're not we can't go higher than that. We could go lower later, but that's the max. And if I'm wrong, someone please tell me.
You're correct. Move to approve scenario three. That was I was I'll second it. I was just about to say that there's a motion and a second to approve um let's see here. 2026 levy scenario 3. There's a motion
and a second. Have a roll call vote, please. Any further discussion? A roll call vote. Um, council member Ner. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree with Council Member Hendrickson that I think we've got some more discussion to do. Um
I remember many years ago that we went down to um cutting a quarter of a percentage and were um very deep into discussion in our workshop to meet that goal um uh of our
council to meet uh a a a rate lower than the ceiling we had already set. And so I know it's possible and I want to say I support you council member Hendrickson in um having continuing that discussion. And so that is why I made the motion uh so we can have a ceiling and continue
discussion on what's um what we'd like to do with Morehead. Okay. And if we can get a roll call vote, please. And just for everyone, if there is a tie, this is not something that I can uh break a tie on. It has to be six votes to pass the preliminary
budget. So with that, could I get a roll call, please? Yes. Sorry, more. No White. Yes. McDougall. No Matson. Yes.
Nelson. No. Nissa Meyer. Yes. Hendrickson. Guess mine doesn't matter. So, no. Okay. So, that is a tie vote. I can't
break a tie um when a vote is needed for uh six votes. So I guess uh commence discussion or if we want to take a break um for 5 minutes. So why don't we actually why don't we do that? Why don't
we take a break until 7:15? So if people need to use the restroom um and then we'll come back and continue discussion just so council members know we are not able to leave tonight until a preliminary budget is passed. Sorry, we
are in recess until 7:15. What I can't believe the next Where were you? Oh boy. Great job. All right. Oh, here we go. Hello. Hello.
Hello. Mine's Yeah, we Hello. There we go. All right. Um we are going to come back um after our short recess so everybody could use the restroom. Um we will continue our discussion. There has been a request to
allow citizens to address the council. This is a business meeting. Um this would be like going into somebody's um business and interrupting a meeting. This is a discussion that is going to be held within council. um citizens to
address the council was already done um earlier tonight in the meeting and we are I'm not going to allow any more citizens dress um the council um has pro been provided the information and you need to make a decision tonight. So with
that I will allow you to continue discussion. Council member Matson. Thank you Madame Mayor. Um question for Jennica. Uh if we were to um take since we've discussed taking things out of reserves, let's just say we take out the startup
for new personnel and the fire station one modifications and take those out of reserves. Um does that get us underneath that 5% threshold? I I don't mean to make you do math in public, but like you're a pro.
Could it? Could it? Is there a P like is I'm just looking for ways to get us through the night here. Yep. There is there is ways if you're trying to get under that 5% we could look at some of those other costs potentially. Yes. Like you said use reserves or use try to find some other funding source that we could use for for
those costs. So it So I guess what I'm asking is there is potentially a way to do scenario three but at a reduced tax rate change from what is presented here? Yes, we could look at options for that.
Okay. So, what I mean, I guess what I would ask us to do then tonight is um I think that I I think what I'm asking us to do tonight is vote to um agree to scenario three, knowing that this is a ceiling. It's not the end of the discussion. It's one step in the
process. And then we can look for ways to bring that number under five as we move forward. Council member White. Thank you, Mayor. I just would like to remind my colleagues that we are public servants and that means we are guests in
this house. Um our first priority is to serve our citizens and it's their voice that should be paramount and so we've had multiple citizens who've asked to speak tonight. We do have a process where we allow
people to speak on agenda items. um they can speak as you know um they can speak on um the one item that we have for just citizens wishing to speak earlier but we also allowed citizens to speak on agenda items and if I I I think if citizens who
we serve wish to speak on this um we should take the time to listen to them. Thank you. Council member White I already addressed this issue. Does somebody else have anything else to say as far as this discussion is concerned? Council member Hendrickson. Uh
thank you, Mayor Carlson. Um Council Member Matson had a good idea. Um I'm like I said, I'm worried about the 5% but if we can do something to tone that down or take from reserves and sounds like the reserves are pretty healthy. So
if we can and I, you know, I implore staff to look for cuts or anything under five. Um if we can get that to under five, I'm willing to support scenario three. Any other council members? I just want to ask Council Member Mat
I'm so sorry about Mayor. I didn't mean to interrupt. Um I just wanted to ask uh Council Member Hendrickson just are you okay with voting with what is here at presented at scenario 3 right now given that this is what is in front of us with the expectation that as we move forward
we will we will get that under 5%. Yes. because this this can change in its preliminary um budget and you know things change. I've been here long enough where I've seen things change. So, and you're right that is it is the ceiling. So, it's not the end all. So,
yeah, I'm willing to go with it. Council member Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. Uh so, the I don't know. I just been on the council here for a couple years, but I don't know that
we've ever solved any staffing issue with any department in the, you know, 20 plus years I was around the city. So, I mean, it's hard. It's it's it's it's uh it's hard to do it in one budget year.
It's got to be a uh a plan thing. I know our leadership team talks about this with our uh department directors um city leadership throughout the throughout the year and you know they'll be coming to us again
in a year from now with another uh with another plan next year and we don't know what that is until they can reassess and see where we're at with um city finances, budgeting, planning and get that team back together. and um city
manager Molly talked at our last workshop that they're in the process of updating the um I guess the uh hiring or staffing plan that'll probably be finished sometime in the uh springtime. Um and so, you know, I think
our department directors have a good, you know, have a good foundation where where they're at. they work together as a team and come up with what's what what's best. Um, and so I think that's what's been done here. Um, I think
that's probably what's going to continue in the future. Uh, at least I hope so. Um, so I think we need to take that into consideration, too. um you know, we're looking up here, making sure that
um as the budgets come in, there's nothing uh frivolous, nothing illegal, nothing, you know, and within within reason. And so, um yeah, so just I don't know, I just
wanted to mention that we need to take that uh as a piece of the of the information, too. So, um, with the, uh, last comment about, um, getting it down below the 5% taking it from the reserves,
um, you know, it keeps the positions on the budget, um, each year, obviously. So, it that's just like an immediate uh one-time um um I guess
reserve on the initial uh tax levy for this year. Uh next year, it'll put us, you know, pretty high right at right at the beginning before we even talk about other positions going back to what council member Borggan was referring to. So, um, we just got to take it all in
and and go from there. So, that's where I'm at. Council member Matson and then Council Member Borggan. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just just a couple things. Point of clarification. What I was talking about taking things from reserves. I was looking at the one-time cost, the startup from doing personnel and the fire station one
modifications and not necessarily from reserves, but you know, find a different way that isn't the levy because I think you were the one that asked for that. You had asked that question originally. Can we take this from somewhere else? And so I just wanted to see if there was a way to get us under that 5% and and it
sounds like there is. Um if so we are um spending money to do the pre-esign work on a station 3. We have a piece of land identified I believe for a future home of station 3. I don't really know that we've identified the precise timeline
for when we get to station three, but um when we have station 3, we will need more staff to um to work out of that station. And it takes time to get you can't just like I don't know. I mean, I get I'm not I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't listen to me. But seems to me that you can't just like put
a fire station down and then hire a bunch of firefighters to to operate it. have to have people that are already trained and and um have already been hired and through all the process and and hopefully, you know, have worked with the team for a while, so they're not just all brand new people. But again, I don't know, so maybe I'm making
that up. But question, um we've heard a lot of numbers. I have not heard how many um and and maybe hopefully the chief can give us a ballpark number of when we have station 3, how many more firefighters, let's say it's 5 years from now, how many four more
firefighters will we need 5 years from now hypothetically than we have today to fully staff station 3? Yes. So, by our estimates, um, from the staffing that we have today, and we're not talking about people we're adding in 2026, whatever number that is, um, we
are looking for 12 firefighters altogether to be able to have that third station open um, with apparatus that staff with a minimum of three person staffing. Thank you. So, we're going to have to go from where we are now to 12 more over some period of time. To me, it makes a
lot of sense to start with the three that we've identified that the fire department has said that, you know, they wouldn't have asked for the safer grant for three FTEEs if they didn't need three firefighters. I mean, I think that's that's pretty obvious, right? And so, we know we we I shouldn't say we know. I don't want to speak for anyone
else, but we have discussed um fully funding those three outright and then applying for the grant to get at get three more potentially. Um and then those three, you know, we will need those six when we get to, you know, three years later and the grant um we
have to with the grant match has ended. We will need those six plus potentially another six in another year or two or you know, I don't know how long it's going to take us to get to station three. So this actually is the incremental step to get to that fully
staffed station 3 in my opinion. Council member Borggan. So in looking at scenario number one, if we did the safer grant and got three firefighters through that grant and we have a zero under three firefighters with the city levy,
if we added a one there, so we paid for one full-time equivalent firefighter applied for the safer grant, that gives us four firefighters in 2026 if we get the grant. If we don't get the grant, which I think we're going to get, like Ry, Ryan, sorry, I'm calling you Ryan
because that's how I call you. Um, like Ryan said, they've got the money and we'll get the grant. So, we would be four, we would have an increase of four firefighters in 2026 and our tax levy would still be under five. To me, that
seems like a way to to solve the problem. And then we can continue to add people as we plan for our third fire station. We don't need 12 today. We are going to need 12 when we have our third fire station, but we don't need them
today or tomorrow or even next year. So, I think a a more incremental way of doing it to help with the budget would be a better way to do it. So, I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion that we go with scenario one with
the modification of instead of zero under three firefighters, we add whatever that one would cost. What is that, Jennica? Let's say 100 grand for one firefighter, knowing that if we don't get the safer grant, then we can come back and we can
look at reserves and we can do a budget uh modification. So, that's my motion. Hey, there's a motion on the table. Is there a second? Second by Nelson. A motion and a second. Further discussion. Uh, Council Member White, then Council Member Matson. Thank
Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, one of the reasons that I was hoping that we could allow citizens to speak or is that we have some folks in the grant who in the room who do have um some expertise related to or some additional information related to the safer grant
and um I don't think our chances are as good as you might think and um they could have provided that information but unfortunately that's not going to we won't have the opportunity to have that. Um I'm were looking over here to a gentleman saying 5% chance. I don't
know. I you know again we unfortunately won't get a chance to hear from them. Um but just even looking around right now these are unprecedented times in terms of federal funding for anything. I mean we're looking at things that we were guaranteed we were going to get that are
getting clawed back every single day. And so just based on that what I know I would not feel confident that we are. But I know when I look at folks in the room who do work in this field and are telling me that, you know, we're going up against uh lots of other large
cities, um there's limited funds, we don't have that great of a chance and so I'm not ready to risk it and I don't plan I'll sit here the whole night. I'm not changing my vote. Council member Matson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um can I ask the
chief a question during discussion? Um my understanding chief is that the reason for three is that you hire in groups of three. Is that correct? Uh one of the reasons we usually request in groups of three is we have three three ships to provide 247 coverage. And
so if we are trying to add a staff member to place an apparatus in service or to achieve a goal, it usually requires three people at a time to make the change evenly across all three of the ships. Thank you. That was that was my understanding and I don't think we've
actually heard that before. So, um that was my understanding of why groups of three are you know we're looking at three potent like the the the scenario three would be three FTEEs outright and then three for the safer grant because they are typically hired in groups of three.
Okay, I have a motion and a second on the table. Any further discussion? If not, roll call vote, please. McDougall, hi. Hendrickson White, yes. Moore,
no. Nissmeire, no. Matson, no. Nelson, yes. It certified that motion does not uh carry. Um, uh, Council Member Nisser.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have another, uh, proposal. Uh, taking what, um, Council Member Nelson proposed two work workshops ago, I'm going to double down on that. Um, hearing what Council Member Hendrickson and several others have said about the magic below five, which I take
to be 4.99. Um, and I, Jenica, check my math. Um if we take the and I am looking at uh slide 67 in case anybody else would like to look at that as well. Um
we have um the safer grant uh firefighters the three positions the 25% local share which would not come out of our budget uh until we got the grant which we don't even know if we can get the grant. I am proposing that we take
that $74,532 out of reserves in addition to the startup for new personnel which would be $15,000 and the fire station modifications $40,000. So that totals, and this is where you got to check me, Jenica,
$219,000 uh $219,532 out of reserves, which would then get us to 51,958,123, which would get us remarkably close to 5%.
And so, um, this is what I was anticipating we would do at a workshop, but in order to, um, hear people's needs and desires, that is what I could come up with as a new proposal. So, I would like to motion to approve I'm going to
call it scenario four. Um, where we take um, scenario three and move three items. the three firefighters on the safer grant, 25 or 25% local share, the startup for new personnel, and the fire station one modifications to come out of
reserves, leaving the remaining 51,958,123 to be levy funded. I will second that motion. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Um, other discussion on this, Council Member Matson,
sorry, I just wanted to point out um, and Jennica, if you could help us out with one second, one other thing piece of math. The 25% local share for the three firefighters under the safer grant, that's $74,000. That is for the full year or is that for a partial year?
That's correct. That's for the full year, right? So, we would not be hiring those firefighters until after the grant application process. We actually get the grant, then we go through all the hiring process. So, we'd be looking at pro not more than half of that 74,000 in realistically.
Correct. Okay. So, we're budgeting for 74, but we don't we're not actually going to use 74. So, it's actually even less than council member Nissa said that would come out of reserves under that scenario. I just wanted to get that out. Make sure I was right on that. Thank you. Y,
Council Member Nelson, you can probably stay up there, Jennica. I'm probably getting way too deep in the into the weeds here for the for this, but you know, if they're starting in the middle of the year, I mean, the the
safer grant then is that a January um well, that's a federal grant, so is that an October one to or is that a January one thing or what is that the grant or maybe maybe that's Chief Wallen? We both stay up here. So, yeah, it is a federal fiscal year.
Um, but we are we would typically be hiring staff sometime between August and September, depending. Again, it all ends up tying back to when that application window truly opens up. Um, but they are tied to that fiscal year. So, as I'm thinking that through, that start date probably does end up being the same
because there's some federal mandates to get money spent and authorized by a certain time and get those funds rolling. Right. Right. So when they do that uh 75% cover the first year, are they going to cover that first year then from like September October through 20
um 27 then you know what I mean? Yes. Correct. That's typically how it works. It's not necessarily exactly with the federal fiscal year because it depends on when you can start that funding and you have 180 days to get those staff on board. Um, but I think typically the federal target that people have to meet in the grant window is they
have to have funds authorized before the end of a fiscal year to go into that three-year period. Even if it rolls into four federal fiscal years altogether, but they've got awards that have to be done before the end of a fiscal year. Okay. So then, uh, we're not going to
feel the full impact of that of the of our 25% share necessarily in 20 uh, well, obviously in 2026. probably not the full in 2027 and then it kind of gets pushed out if you will. It correct
am I? Yes, that's correct. So the first year um very conservatively 6 months or less that we would be on the hook for Council Member Borggan. Okay, Chief, stand up there, please.
Okay, I'm feeling a little bit like we're not really doing what we're supposed to be doing. It's governance and the staff, the management of each department is supposed to be doing operations. So I think the
the foundational question is to the chief and I don't mean to put you on the spot and I know you've got your people here and I know there is I mean I'm just going to say the elephant in the room is we've got a union that wants one thing. We've got management that maybe wants something
else. So that is something that is it it's tension and I understand that. I used to work with that so I get it. But from your standpoint, you are the administrator, you are the management, you are you are it. You and your team,
do you want seven people added to your staff in one year? Well, let me let me start off by saying this. Um the the request that we put in for three firefighters this year is the first incremental step in moving forward with first of all staffing the ladder
truck for a need that we have now. um and then begins to address the buildup to be able to open that third station which will be some years down the road because there are time constraints in planning and then actually executing plans to do that. Um and this comes
along with our uh fire department strategic plan which was adopted in January of this year and finalized. And one of those elements is to develop a comprehensive staffing plan for long range for the fire department as well as comprehensive facilities plan long range
for the fire department. And those two plans are consistent with the rest of the city's strategic plans as well. And they're also a function of the accreditation that we're seeking as well. That those are two vital components uh core competencies that we have to have to be a credible agency.
And we need to have those documents done if we are hitting the next accreditation window by no later than March of next year. And so those critical documents that we would be proposing timelines on a multi-year basis of when we'd be opening up station 3 and when we would
be proposing the staff members to come on board at whatever increments we feel are the best to uh the best to recommend would be being developed between now and March of next year. And so we could take three additional fire
stations and 50 people today and find things find ways to make the community better. Um but we were prepared in May when we were putting together the budget proposal for the next period of time and granted several uh events have transpired since May to apply different
to apply additional pressures. But we have gotten to this point by strategic planning and by specific plan steps to develop strategic plans for the fire department and develop recommendations moving forward. And that's the basis for the three firefighter request for this
year as an immediate step and uh taking some additional time to have those comprehensive plans put together and brought before council uh next year. Okay. So, what I heard you say was we're not talking about the trainer because everyone wants the trainer, right? And they're not really a
firefighter, right? Maybe. I don't really understand that. I'm not in operations in the fire department, but it doesn't seem to me that they're like on the truck. Yeah, they're not typically on a truck on a day-to-day basis. And your strategic plan was to add add a trainer, add three people this year, add
three people. When I say this year, I mean 2026. Add three more, 27, maybe three more, 28. Then you get you're getting to that 12 that you need when we open the new fire station, whenever that is, the third fire station. Um, yes and no. And I would say that
whether we're asking for three next three a year later and three a year later or whether we're asking for six or safer grant for nine, those questions will be developed over the next several months both between my administrative staff and the fire department members that were trying to seek the input on that. So I don't even have that specific
an answer to say what's our four-year plan for how do we want to ramp up staffing. We're still working on that. Council member, I don't know which one of you Oh, thank you. Thank you, mayor. Uh, thank you, chief. And I think what I heard was you need you need positions
right now. And again, those three that we are guaranteeing that we want to have filled would help to meet some of your current need. And then you're working on some things that it sounds like you were wrapping up a lot of that around what did you say March, May. And as a
reminder, if we if we get the safer grant, right, those positions wouldn't be filled until much later next year. And so that so the work sounds like the work that you would be doing that would all come before then as well, right? And so, um, again, it's not as if we're
bringing in seven new people at the beginning of next year. This is um we're looking at the four positions for sure and then there would be time to work on the things that you've just spoken of and then um if we are fortunate enough
to get federal funding um for these that that would be something that would occur later on. Correct. I believe so. Thank you, Council Member Matson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think um we're just preserving options. I'm not telling
the chief who he has to hire when. We're just preserving options right now. And one of the options on the table is is that federal grant that may or may not exist by the time we want to apply for it. And maybe we get it and maybe we don't. But that's from in my mind that's all we're doing right now is just is
just giving them giving the fire department options for next year. And and that's up to them how they how they use those options. Council member Moore. So, I'm not a finance g. I don't know exactly how this works, but I'd just
like to draw attention to the fact that earlier this evening in our resolution, we approved the sale of our library for 1.4 million. And so, I did some basic math down here, and it looks like we could cover the entire cost of scenario
three and still have $767,000 in change left over. So, in this resolution, it says that we're going to put that money towards redrated facility deficiencies identified, but if we think about what's in our strategic plan,
which is the safety of our community, perhaps we could put that money towards our fire department. So, Jennica, could you speak if to whether we could use that money in a different way or if it has to go to these red rated facilities?
Um, yes. So, there was a council resolution that was approved a number of years ago that um actually states the sale of city-owned land is to be placed into that building improvement fund. Could that money be placed to improve
the fire station one modifications? You want to take that one down, city manager Molly? Yes. The thing about um like the sale, that's a one-time um expenditure. And so a lot of times when we're funding operating, we don't want to, you know, create a
situation where we're relying um we're just we're basically kicking the ball down the field if we pay uh for operating expenses with one-time income or revenue, but we could do a one-time modification with a one time income.
Certainly, city council can certainly do that. So we could pull that off and that cost off. Bring it down. Yes. Okay. Council member Borggan. Then Council Member White. Yeah. I did want to I forgot to say this, so sorry, but I I'm not really in
favor of doing a budget and saying we're going to use reserves. I don't think that's the right business decision. I think when you're doing a budget, you should be doing a budget straight and not saying, "Well, we're going to do this and that and we're take some out of reserve." I just don't think that's I
think it's wrongheaded and I think it's a slippery slope and I think if you're going to take something out of reserves, it should be because there's something that comes up and we have to do something in the middle of the year and maybe we have to have a resolution to do that. But to make a plan to take money
out of reserves to meet the budget doesn't feel right to me and I think that we shouldn't do that. That's just my opinion. Council member White. Thank you. Um and actually I know Council Member Borgan, this is her first year, so you weren't here last year, but that's exactly what we did for some of
the law enforcement positions. And so we approved them and we had some that we said if they're able to hire, we'll pull it from reserve. So we ended up not putting it in the budget and instead um said that we would pull it from reserves. So we actually do have a
precedent of doing that with our public safety. We just did it a year ago. Um so I and again I just what I hear is we're looking for flexibility and again this is a ceiling not a floor. It's not
it's not a a lock. It's saying that we want to we ideally want to get this below five. I like that too, but we have some options. And so I really do I I'm supportive of council member Nisser. I know we do have a motion on the table
and I I support council member Nisser uh's recommendation. I just wanted to make sure. And so it doesn't necessarily have to be reserves. It could be. Again, we think some of these things will actually come in lower. We know some of them would come in lower. Um, and maybe there's some other places that we could cut too that wouldn't necessarily have
to draw from reserves, but we have options to be able to get the budget number down to below 5% while still um investing in our public safety. Council member Matson, could we please
restate the motion? Christina, could you help me out what I said? Yep. So, I've got approved for scenario four. I've just named it scenario far also to remove the safer grant startup and fire station one modifications from reserves.
Um do I'm so sorry can I clarify? So when we say uh take them from reserves it with regarding this particular motion that's on the table. Um it's I don't know that we're saying they have to come out of reserves, but they're coming
we're finding other funding sources for those particular items on the scenario three. Yes. Would you accept a friendly amendment to that point? Yes. I I think finding alternative funding sources as um council member
Moore just found a couch cushion where we could take 40,000 out uh from somewhere else versus reserves. I think that's great. Thank you for clarifying that. Um to madame clerk, uh do you need any clarification or is that um mud
decle? So remove the safer grant startup and fire station one modifications from alternative funding. Uh move yeah take those off of scenario three and and look for alternative funding sources for those items.
Okay. Then can I call the question? Yep. If we can get a roll call vote, please. Niss Meer, yes. Moore, yes. Oregon, no. White, yes. McDougall, no. Hendrickson,
yes. Matson, yes. Nelson. Which time do I get? I'll start the timer. Is it the three minutes? Well, I had a comment to make before the call
to question. So, um, put it as a no for right now. I don't want to. So, that is a 5 to3 vote. Um, that motion does not carry. Um, I guess let the discussion continue. And Council Member Nelson,
so my my question that I had, and I I don't uh maybe this is for city manager Molly, have have we uh ever uh considered um or what's the
uh maybe flavor from council if the uh safer grant was applied? And is there has there ever been or a way to do it where um you incrementally put those positions in over the course of you we're talking about those other
three positions that in the in the city budget on the levy. Is it you know do it one one and one or two and one or 01 and two you know any one of the equations. Can we this year put it into because
we're talking about for 2026. Can we already say put it put something in 2027s or can I do you know what I'm getting at? Yeah. Future commitments. Um yeah, you you can't do that. If if you
approve the levy um to say the three positions that those are funds that are available January 1, 2026. Right. Right. the I will say so related to the safer grant um you know with the match as it
draws down when when the council approves the use of the safer grant at the end of that third year in the fourth year there is the expectation well not the expectation I mean we're required to fully fund all three of those positions um to the point um that council member
White had made earlier about the authorization the creation of the of the police off the the the police officer positions last year um that were not funded as part of the levy. We weren't sure if we're going to be able to hire them or where they are. Those positions are all fully funded in this year's in
the 26 budget. So, and then just just so everybody's aware, we are looking, we've talked at our workshops, this is for the public and everybody as well, that the team is looking at long range staffing planning like we've done with the capital improvement plan, that fiveyear citywide capital improvement plan that we
initiated about five years ago. So, we could look across the organization and identify where the needs are. doing that the same thing with these positions um in every department of the city so we can plan um community development director Christy Lee has an excellent model on how to do this over 10 years
she shared that at our last workshop um so no matter what happens we plan to do that as an organization that'll be part of our workshops likely in early 26 thank you um I actually have a few questions here so one of the things that
I've always admired about the process that uh city manager Molly has led the executive leadership team is in this budget development. There are nine different departments
within the city. And in the past, my understanding has been that each department has kind of um kind of done this knockout, drag go kind of argument, fight, whatever you want to call it, to make sure that their needs are always met. And it really pitted department
against department. and the process that the city manager utilizes right now with the nine executive leaders um in our in our uh city
um is that they meet together on a regular basis. I believe they meet uh weekly and they talk about the needs um of each of their departments. But then the message is that we need to look at our city as a whole.
We're only greater as a community when we lift each other up in a way that is smart, when we are good stewards of our funding sources, which is the taxpayers, which is everybody in this room.
And when we meet our fiduciary responsibilities in order to do it in a way that makes sense and is smart and intentional. And I tend to look at our department leaders as not just subject matter
experts in their respective departments because I think everybody in each department is a subject matter expert. I'm certainly not an expert in firefighting, not an expert in prosecution, not expert in public works, and I can go down the line with all nine of our departments.
But one thing that is different and unique with our department heads is not only are they subject matter experts, they are subject matter experts in leading a department. So people within the departments do not
know the responsibilities that each of these department heads shoulder which is managing all of the needs within each respective department. And these department heads come to these weekly meetings and they make sure that they're looking
out for the people in their department, but that they're also looking out for the people in other departments because we can't put all of our funding into one department and a $51 million
budget as I have sat and listened to the council members get into operations telling our subject matter that are experts where money should be moved from what fund to a different fund not having all of the information because we are
not up here to be subject matter experts in the operations. We are up here to be policy and decision makers and I apologize to our finance director who is continually having to do math as we are as you are throwing out all of
these different scenarios. What happened was there was a subject matter expert in one of our departments who came and said after talking with other departments that looking at what the budget is for our entire city,
I would like to have a full-time training coordinator and three firefighters with a safer grant. And I think that I was at the first workshop and I think that there was a lot of confusion about asking for three but not explaining that it was with the
safer grant. I think the initial proposal that our chief who is our subject matter expert not just in firefighting but also in running a fire department reflects his commit commitment to being
a good steward of public funds. And what I've heard from council members is that if we don't get the f the safer grant, then we would look at dipping into reserves. We don't want to lose a bond rating. That has happened in other communities and it doesn't bode well for
our entire city. A budget is more about numbers. It's about what are the values that we're putting into action. our values is that we care about not just our firefighters, not just about public safety, but we care about our entire city. And correct
me if I'm wrong, but if we are applying for a grant and we are looking at perhaps supplanting it with a grant, if we ask for the scenario three, the federal government or whatever grant entity that you're applying for could be
looked at as supplanting and then we are not ever going to be able to get those safer grants. But you could apply for three safer funding positions in 2026. You could apply for three the next year and three the next year. Very similar to what we have done
in other departments. Again, our governance structure in the city of Morehead is that we hire two people as council. We hire the city manager. We hire the city attorney. And then they hire people who are the best of the best. And I will
put every one of our department heads against up of any other department in any other city across the state of Minnesota and across anywhere because I respect and admire every single one of our department heads and I respect and admire every single one of our employees and I think you guys work
your asses off all the time and we're continually compared to a city that is three times the size of us. But I hope that everybody on this council understands that our department heads have worked their butts off to make sure that the budget that they
presented to us after workshopping it like you guys have done for the past two and a half or an hour and a half on top of the workshops. I don't know that you guys are going to come up with any better solution than what was initially proposed by our fire
chief who has years of experience, who knows exactly how to put forth a comprehensive staffing plan and has probably spent numerous hours doing so. by questioning him, by questioning
our finance director and how she came with these numbers is offensive. So with that, can we please figure something out and move forward and listen to our subject matter experts
that we have right here in the city of Morehead? Council member Nisser. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, Jennica, I would like to clarify a statement that the mayor just made. She said that we would be losing a bond rating um if we uh
I did not say that we would be losing a bond rating. What I said was that there's a potential of it when we're dipping into reserves. We went down from 60 to 50%, if we continue to go down, that's when you could potentially lose and reduce a budget or a bond rating.
Mayor, I know you're tense. It's a tense. I have not called on you, Council Member White. Council member Nissa Meyer, you have the floor and then you can go, Council Member Matson, and then you can go after that. Respectfully ask that you respectfully ask you to stop talking. Council member N.
I'm just asking that you we all It's tense. Do you want me to call you out of order? It's tense and I'm not called on you. You to speak respectfully. Let's all take a deep breath and council member speak respectfully to each other. Ma'am,
thank you, Madame Mayor. I also agree that this is a tense moment um and that respecting one another and treating others with um the benefit of all of the labor that everyone in this room has put in is extremely important. And so, while
I was called out for interrupting someone earlier this evening, I did uh provide a an apology. My hope is is that we can continue decorum and respect my thoughts on the comment of losing a
bonding perhaps I misheard and so um I was concerned because again that uh affects us overall and so if you can provide any additional um input I welcome that because again being responsible is my utmost concern.
Yes. I think you just want to be um aware of the policy that we have in place again to make sure that reserve is within that 40 to 60% range. Um so when talking about reserves, we just want to make sure we're looking at the numbers and projecting where that fund balance
will come out to. Um and then again, as city manager Molly had mentioned, um the you know, the use of one-time money is typically something that we would not put into a long-term budget, right? Because that's you're only getting that one time. these costs are reoccurring and happen year after year. So that's
typically a strategy that you don't want to use in budgeting is to use one-time resources for your general fund. So, um, that's a really great that like leads me into my follow-up question was, um, I thought we had discussed earlier that
the startup for new personnel and the fire station modifications were one-time money. And so, based on what you just said, and again, I am trying to be um, abundantly clear and make sure I understand, wouldn't that mean these
shouldn't those funds shouldn't be here? If you are saying we shouldn't do put one-time monies um in the budget, those are one-time expenses. Expenses versus revenue. Revenue. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I know that we are using the same language and so I just want to
know that um revenue is an entirely different ball of wax. Um and our city growth is actually yielding us potentials for additional revenue. Um which is a really great thing and I think that's why we're here. um not only uh appreciating the subject matter
matter experts who bring forth things but also historically we have as a council changed the proposal. Um I think city manager Molly as well as several other council members um highlighted that and so um I don't know that anybody
would um not appreciate uh the time and labor that has gone into this evening. I am eager to find um that ceiling that we can set this evening and then continue discussions um that are for the better of Morehead. Thank you,
Council Member Matson. Um could we take a fiveminute break, please, Mayor? No, we just took a break 45 minutes ago. Council member White. Thank you, Mayor. Um I had a couple of things. one is I I
hope there wasn't anything that would indicate disrespect for our great um directors. So So if there's anything I said and I know everybody else would probably say the same thing because we do have we do have phenomenal staff and um the one thing that I know too is that
some is our our directors are also um very generous and kind about putting others first. And we've seen this over the years that uh you know sometimes departments even though they do have a really pressing need, they know that other departments have even greater
needs. And it's always really tough to make these decisions. And we've seen that in the last few years when we've said even though we have great needs throughout the city, we knew that our law enforcement was really hurting. And it was, you know, it was tough. And I
know that some of you made tough choices and said, "Even though I I really need we need it. We need support. My my workers are having a hard time, but I'm going to put that on the back burner now because I see, you know, my colleagues over in that department really
struggling." And so we know we have a history of that. And um we have focused on law enforcement for the last few years. We knew that we needed to do that. I'm really grateful that we do that and we need to continue to do that.
This is a year where we're gonna meet some of that pent that built up need that we've been putting on the back burner and putting on the back burner in our fire department. um doesn't mean that we're not going to
look really um closely at where we need to meet needs later on in the f you know next year could be more snowplow drivers. Um, but again, we know that part of the reason that these things
have built up is because some of you, and again, to your credit, have really put those needs aside. And because you knew that other folks were hurting even more. And so, we recognize that. We appreciate it. And we want you to know
we've got your back. And so, that's what we're here to do tonight. Um the one thing that I would say too is I really appreciated that we were looking for a compromise of um ideally not drawing from reserves if you know or as little as we have to but looking for some other
places. We still have time to work on that between now and when we have to finalize the budget to look at how do we get that under 5%. And I know that that was the motion that um council member Nisser Meyer had and um with her
friendly amendment. And so I know my two colleagues over from C from W one are speaking, but I wanted to ask if I could get their Ryan and Nicole just a question because um since that motion was voted down, am I correct that it can
only be brought back by someone who voted no? And if so, I just wanted to point that out to um council member Nelson because I also saw you had your hand raised and at that time and I know um council member Matson hadn't seen it when she called question and I know how
frustrating that is when you don't get to say what you wanted to say but um I still really support that compromise of let's look at what we can do to get this under five but let's make that commitment. you know, we've been putting
our fire department on the back burner for quite a while now. Um, let's do what we need to do. Uh, city manager Malu. Thank you, Mayor and Council Member White and everybody. Appreciate the comments about the leadership team. They really are good. They're smart. The
budget, it's a good budget. I mean, the the the process is we're we're we're hung up here. And if I could, I'm just going to throw out um an option perhaps that the council can consider discuss. um we hear about 4.9. We don't have to get all the operational pieces kind of
um thrown out today. Council member Moore had suggested maybe looking at some other way the sources for for use on the one-time uh stuff. But the C what we do need to do by state law tonight is or before the end of September is um
approve the preliminary the the preliminary levy amount, you know. So, we could approve that amount the we the council could approve that amount tonight and then we could continue workshopping and looking at um just just
continuing the work. And then uh city attorney Shaklay, did you have a comment to make? I wasn't quite sure. Um thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh I was just uh trying to get your attention because uh Dan and I had been chatting
about uh that particular issue about setting the budget. We kind of just formulated that you could set the levy uh give some basic direction to staff and then uh workshop out. Thank you.
If we need additional workshops, we could schedule them as well. I mean, you know, there's a lot of choices. We're also required to approve that final budget. I believe it's December 8th. Council member Borggan. Then Council Member Hendrickson, I'd make a motion that we
approve a levy of 4.9 and workshop to get us to that number. Do you mean a tax rate? Yeah, tax rate. Sorry. 4.9. So, there's a motion uh on the table. Is there a second?
I'll second that. There's a second. Um, any further discussion, Council Member White and then Council Member Hendrickson. My concern would be that, you know, we we've had changes happen
and I don't want to back away from this positions and and so, you know, um that's I don't know how to how to put that exactly, but I don't want to walk out of this room and all of a sudden we
are down to oh, we're back to just waiting on the safer grant or, you know, um something like that. You know, I I'm I'm not looking to I'd rather hash it out and um make the we make the commitment.
We had a compromise, you know, that got us to just what we said. We get it under five. Okay. but with the commitment to fired for to our uh fire that we agreed
to in our workshop. Council member Nisser. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Was somebody Chuck I or sorry, Council Member Hendrickson, I think you've been called on before. Go ahead. Council member Hendrickson then council member Nisser. Thank you. Uh
thank you, Mayor Carlson. from all the years I've been on the council, we're supposed to establish a ceiling on the tax rate and then we can work it out from there. So, let's just do it. I mean, I'm willing to go to 5.58% because that's a ceiling and we
can always, you know, whittle it down, but um let's make a decision. And scenario three is not in stone. Scenario 2 is not in stone and scenario one's not in stone. So, let's just make a decision on the rate and get over it and bring your jammies in December because it's going be another long meeting. So,
That's all I have. Council member Nismar. Thank you, Council Member Hendrickson. Um I was going to say the same. I can't vote yes on this motion because I am concerned. We um had some new things today. I al also value the work that put in to these new things. And I think
setting the ceiling as council member um Hendrickson stated at 5.58 gives us an opportunity for more workshops. Whether it's more workshops, whether it's workshops and jammies with pizza, like I can bring popcorn. like let's do it. And so I am going to vote
against your motion, Council Member Borggan, but I also want to say I earnestly also agree that we should not have a budget set on reserves. And so um I know that changes happen and budgets are plans. They're not set in stone, but I do believe we have an opportunity here
for additional workshopping. And so thank you um city attorney Shley and council member Molly by giving us that um opportunity and reinforcement that we're not done yet and that we have room for work. So can we get a roll call vote, please?
Was there a Sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you have your second to the uh Council Member Borggan? Um and then it was council member Hendrickson. This is a vote to approve the tax rate of 4.9% and workshop further.
White, no. Oregon, yes. Nissmeer, no. Moore, no. Matson, no. Nelson, yes.
McDougall, hi. Hendrickson. Yep. Yes. Okay. That was 4 to four. We need to continue working. I will move that we um I'm so sorry I
didn't I so yeah, Council Member Nelson had his hand raised. So, Council Member Nelson, I move to set the tax rate at 5.58% and we'll go to uh workshop and hammer it out. Second. A motion and a second. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, um roll call vote, please. Sorry. Matson, yes. Moore, yes. Morgan, no. McDougall,
no. Hendrickson, yes. Nelson, yes. Nissa Meyer. Yes. White. Yes. All right. That is a six to2 vote. So that motion carries. Um the tax rate has
been set at 5.58% with um an intent to continue to workshop um the budget. So moving on to the next item on our agenda is mayor and council reports. Do any council members
have any reports from council um boards or commissions? Council member Borggan and then Council Member White. Um I attended the Missouri River Energy Services Leadership Academy in Sou Falls
because I'm on the Morehead Public Service Commission. It's the second um conference I've been to on energy and it was really great. It was nice to learn more about how we get our energy and we had some good talks about some possible
large customers that could be coming to Morehead and what we're going to do in the future to make a plan to get that energy. So, I think it was a really good meeting and I'm glad that I went. That's it. Council member White. Thank you, Mayor. Um, first I wanted to
uh thank the folks that organized the event for our Ukrainian refugees. Um it was a great event in Gooseberry Park yesterday. Uh and then I wanted to give a just a quick update that we in our MAT bus meetings, Matt Bus committee
meetings, we did finally reach an agreement on our um recommended budget and our recommendations for route changes. It was this will then come before the for I think it was to city I
think Fargo city commission was tonight and then we'll have the um it'll come to council later. It was very difficult. Um but we were able to um get to commit instead of basically a
I think a 40 or so percent cut in what they were putting into Matt Bus to a 25% cut. So they still are taking out more than a million dollars from what they contributed to MAP bus last year. Um but we were able to claw back uh most of the
route changes. So there will be very little change to Mattbus service. Um so again it just if you haven't looked at some of the stuff just make sure you're watching that and that will come before the um the council at a future meeting.
Council member Nissmeer. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um I uh had the opportunity to participate in the Caslay Food Commission um two days after our last city council um meeting and um we
had a really thorough and outstanding discussion about um the loss of federal funding and the impacts that it will have on our community, particularly those who are marginalized or at risk for um other issues. And so it was a
really great uh discussion about food systems and what we have in place or what we can think ahead um to support um residents of the metropolitan area. Um as well as a call to action and see how um our city as well as other cities can
work together to support um folks as uh we know there are a number of issues that typically impact um folks and it snowballs into becoming a larger issue. Um, and if we work together as a metropolitan group of governments as
well as county governments, the hope is is that we um are able to have a resolution um that improves the lives of many in our community. Um, I also want to thank um the nomination um and work on the proclamation for Rosie Gonzalez
Day. Um, Ros's work uh was highlighted at the Casclay Food Commission. Um, and uh, Rosie Gonzalez Day was September 14th. It was a proclamation that I was able to read at her, um, siesta, fiesta, fantastic party of both retirement as
well as um, uh, her birthday. And so it was absolutely fantastic to be able to be there um and read that Rosie Gonzalez day, which I wouldn't have been able to without uh the wonderful work of our staff um and a nomination from a community member, a recommendation for
Ros's work um over multiple decades. Uh I know uh solid waste advisory committee has been on the minds of folks and the resource recovery center. And so I want to invite folks to um attend our September SWAC meeting or solid waste advisory committee which is on Thursday
morning at 8 a.m. Um we get lots of updates about recycling, trash, landfills, real exciting stuff. But I know that um people have been learning information about the uh county and city um contract agreements to operate the resource recovery center. And so I hope
to get updates and share them publicly at the SWAC meeting this coming Thursday, September 25th at the Resource Recovery Center at 8 a.m. Council Member Moore. Well, thank you, Madame Mayor. I'll make this very quick. Um, so library board meeting on September 9th. I wanted to
thank Jade Profett for her awesome job. This was her first year doing the summer reading program and she got 650 kids and teens to read and get wild about reading which was fantastic. They had nine events averaging over a hundred different attendees and uh breaking a record at 200 attendees at one of them.
I also want to encourage our community to come together. There is one book, one community author visit. Uh it is at Concordia University a week from today at 7 p.m. Doors open at 6:30. The book is The Bell in the Lake by Lars Mitting. Um, and we were talking about uh
fiduciary responsibility and I just had to give a shout out to Jamie Sprinzente. I might be saying his name wrong, but um finance on our Lara board which I had the Laurel board meeting on September 18th and I think the one, two, three, four, five grants um over 80k. So we're
saving tens of thousands of dollars going after all those federal grants and there's a lot of work that goes into that. So thank you to him. Council member Matson, I would like to report that it is Council Member Moore's birthday. Oh my gosh. Yesterday. Yesterday. Thank you.
Miss Happy belated birthday. Thanks. Um, Council Member Hendrickson. Uh, thank you, Mayor Carlson. Had the opportunity to um attend the United Way executive event. Um, I think it was last Tuesday. I might be getting my days
mixed up, but they had the kickoff event and it looks like a good year. United Way does a great job throughout the Fargo, Morehead, West Fargo Horus community, Dworth. So, a lot of fun, good coffee. So, that's what I really appreciated. And I would I just want to
emphasize too that our staff is great. Our leadership staff, our whole staff for the city of Morehead, they're outstanding and it's just gotten better and better since I've been on the council. So, I just wanted to point that out and thank you for all you do. Your commitment to Morhead is just unreal.
So, thanks. Any other council members have reports? Um the only report that I have is um that I am on the uh League of Minnesota um board of directors. Um we had our
board retreat last week. Um looked at uh strategic priorities for the league um across the state of Minnesota. Um and one interesting thing that a lot of discussion was spent on was that the
governance structure is um frequently not being adhered to by multiple uh cities throughout the state of Minnesota. So there was a lot of discussion regarding governing in uh in
times where it seems that um politics are seeping its way down from um the national through the state down into local government and that uh local government is not a place for um
politics. um because um it it's just uh not the way that the governance structure is put in um within cities. So um it was very interesting to have a full day discussion about that. So um that's what I attended last week
and city man. Thank you mayor. Um I hate to put us in reverse but we we need to go there. Um, we have a resolution to approve the preliminary 2026 economic development authority. Sorry, I missed that.
Yeah, if we could do that. Move to approve. Nissa mayor second more. Uh, any discussion on the EDA resolution? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you.
All right. And we do not have an executive session and no new business. So, it's 8:25. Good night, Morehead.