I think we're Hang tight on mute. Okay, I think we're good now. Okay, perfect. Um, we will officially call to order the continuation for the city of Nisa of our retreat special meeting from last week, September 18th,
2025. It is 4:00 p.m. on September 23rd, 2025. Um, so the first item we have on here that is a continuation from last week, uh, our special retreat is the organizational structure, um, where we
discussed a possibility of an organizing structure for the city of Nisa moving forward. I recreated Jesse's. So, I'm gonna hang that up and step away from the mic for a minute uh, for that for discussion. And then I also created just another possible scenario as well for
consideration. So let me pitch out these first. Okay. So, Council Member Freillley, you were not with us last week because you were sick. So, again, I that's why I asked if I should hang it there because my eyesight's bad, so I can't really read it. Hopefully, you guys can. But in
short, uh, Council Member Philly, if you can see, it has the council basically right at the top and then a city admin/clerk reporting into the council and then a a newly created position, a director of
finance, treasurer, which would also report directly into the council. And then under the city admin clerk, you'd have a deputy clerk slashadministrative assistant which would report into that
admin clerk and then maybe at some point later down another uh administrative assistant and then a separate which is a box all the way to the right. So separate like an outside firm uh doing HR and then the one at the very bottom
like going up into the admin/clerk would be all the department heads. So that was a discussion council member Freilley last week and I don't know if you I know you weren't well. I don't know if you had a chance to catch up and watch any of what the discussion was or
to connect with others around, but um I wanted to give you a chance to share a perspective because you weren't with us last week. I just what was the reason for putting the um
director of finance treasur by themselves reporting straight to the council and not underneath the um admin administrator clerk >> I think and any other council members can correct me if I'm wrong but I think the thought was because it is an
elevated role and so it'll have higher level responsibilities on key things related to the city, right? So, let's just take what we know it's in front of us immediately like you've got the land purchase for example, a parks master plan, different things like that of taking out like a added layer of
reporting um and also giving the council uh more direct exposure to having that report directly up. But I will let uh council member Hall, council member Zan, council member London um because my memory may not be perfect from last week
uh to add to that. >> Yeah. And I think it was also discussed amongst the staff and the department heads that were there also too helps kind of give uh checks and balances that it's that all these financial decisions aren't then ultimately driven by one person in the city. You know, the city
administrator that there's kind of uh two people there that are reporting to the council. you know that there's um as we move ahead with that too. >> So administrator working with the treasurer but uh treasure being independent
and coming to the council on decisions for money. Okay. Um and then just why why would we move HR to a why would we outsource HR? Let me let me before you go to that question,
let me just see if council member Z on had anything has anything to add about why the finance director is separate. >> Think you both nailed it on the head from the from the meeting last week to go to report to the city admin clerk.
Again, this was a first stab that we took at it, but we all seem to stack hands on it. The thought was with the council having the ultimate say in authority, which is why we discussed at that retreat was to review the two personnel policies. I say the two
referencing the one from 2016 and then the one that was adopted in April 16th of most recent revision was this year if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, >> there's a lot of tweaking that I think
quite a few of us believe that should be done to it so we can have uh the proper authority within the positions within the departments and uh if I may answer the HR question. >> Let me see if if >> Sure. >> Um council member London, do you have
anything you want to add to council member Freilley about why we moved the director of finance over before we moved to the second part of his question? Okay. So now the second part of your question was the keep ours separate. >> Yep. So I'll let council member Zan go
first on that. >> In my world, the private sector world, um the argument I made to these these few up here when we were together on and I don't have the job description printed
out. It's okay. Um, in my world in construction, I referenced safety as an example of safety and quality not being under construction. We're a construction firm, but we don't want to have we do not have safety and quality underneath
the vice president or the president of the company in that regard strictly due to the fact that you need to have an independent group that is not dictated, directed or controlled by the leader or leaders of the organization even though they're a part of the organization and
HR in the realm of the city of Nisah being a vital function for it to flow. The previous job description we had was director of finance, human resources. >> Yeah. And that should be separated anyway. >> That was my reasoning for it. And then to see if we were able to
find option A, B, and C, and they're out there. Um, I was able to identify a handful just on my own research to for us to be able to subcontract delegate basic human resources/people operations functions. So um something
that comes to mind is if there is a conflict if there is an issue with any of the department heads within the city where does that flow to right existing structure flew up to city administrator. However if that city administrator is
one of the plaint plaintiffs or defendants of the issue issue arises from that. So outsourcing it perhaps there's cost savings plus it's such a specialty function. It like my director of human resources now
people operations she has uh quite a bit of credentials to be able to qualify her for that position. A thought was to have it outsourced. So there's always this independent funnel to go through. There's still going to be in-house HR functions that will supplementary HR
functions that are going to need to be completed such as onboarding and offboarding. um getting the folks that are coming into the organization or leaving the organization prepared to do their job and the discussion was the deputy clerk/administrative assistant
administrator assistant uh would be able to accommodate that. >> So separating conflict out of it and putting that into >> that was I think my biggest uh pitch for it. Yeah. And >> yeah, and if I may, um, one of the questions we asked is, you know, how
does the city currently define the HR rule right now? And we talked about the definition and what that meant and whatever because even amongst us looking into the city, it was confusing, I think, for a lot of us looking at how this
um operates and what the role of HR is currently within the city. It's not well defined. And so by making clear definition of how it's defined, how it's going to work, what the roles are, and then um allows clear voice for any
employee to go to somebody without fear of >> conflict. Yeah. Conflict or retaliation. >> Correct. >> So that was Do you have any other questions about >> Okay. So I have I I I I drew another chart. So, and it's totally gonna you're
>> an artist put a a wrinkle in the wave, right? Um, I just want to share it for perspective like just as a as an idea and I I wanted uh Maggie if she doesn't mind and I don't know if Tom would want to or not, Tom Blommer because they've
been here for a long time just to chime in. And again, I'm not trying to make this meeting last like 10 hours, but it's just for conversation. But what I'm going to do is I'm going to hang it there because there's a microphone there and I can't see that. So maybe you guys can see that better.
>> Okay. So, it it is a change, but I just I I want to just share it and share the rationale. I want to just have Maggie chime in and and Tom if he so desires, but then again, this is just for conversation. I'm not trying to make this meeting last 10 hours, but the
residents are at the top, right? Then here we are as a council. And this is something we've talked about before, but we never like as a council were fully driving on board. is if we went back to a clerk system. Um we still add this elevated role of finance director who
both report to the council and then under the clerk then we still have what we talked about a deputy clerk/admin assistant. So the only thing that's changing in this scenario is instead of calling an admin clerk going back to a clerk system. I'll explain in a minute.
And then underneath you've got the department heads. So then the department heads in effect come up to the council. Okay. Um here's why I just drew this out as thought. Um so then under finance director, you'd have the finance
director treasurer. Sorry. You'd keep payroll over here and all the other functions. Under clerk, you'd have HR and what did I write? Election. So then HR isn't uh an external one. Here's why I I I did this today just as an idea to drop.
Because the first thought that came to me as I was thinking, we've had a lot of ups and downs since April, let's call it a lot of uh not not a smooth path. We've had an interim administrator for seven days and we had another one for
basically a month. Um but in the grand scheme of things, aside from Maggie being like way overloaded at this point in time, the train hasn't come off the tracks. The city's been operational. And so I just started thinking and especially now again aside from the fact
that Maggie is to totally overloaded right now, the city seems to be functioning. We're still able to move things forward, right? We had a positive retreat. We had a positive council meeting last week. Projects are going forward. We had the the the great presentation from PFM. Tom
knows what he's doing on the road bonds for 26 and 27, right? Um Todd's running his department. Steven's running it, right? So everything again seems to be moving forward um in a positive way. The concern that we discussed about the
HR about conflict and having employees not feel like retaliation or or hesitation or intimidated to come forward if there's a concern. If you go back and look through those personnel policies manuals, there used to be a more robust way for people to come
forward that somehow got changed in one iteration to another. So, it used to be like they could go to their department head, but if the department head was a problem, they could go to the city admin. Well, if the city admin was a problem and or maybe was their department head, they could go to the personnel committee. But if if there was some concern with people on the
personnel committee, you could also go direct to the mayor and the council or as an employee, you should be able to go to either the city attorney or a labor attorney, right? Like to me, there should be multiple pathways there, which somehow they seem to get minimized and funneled um in some iteration in the
past. So, I just I put that in the bubble here. Um, I know we're not talking about budget until the end, but I just I put this as an aside over here. Um, right now in the admin clerk finance budget is about 312,000
for 2026 just on the salaries only line. So that's not their retirement contributions. It's not health. It's just their salaries. Well, looking at the the very highest end of the scale, right? So if someone was at the very tippy top of their paychart for these three positions, it'd be 120K for
finance director, 85 for clerk, and 65 for deputy clerk admin. Well, when you add that all together, unless I did my math wrong, it's 270. So you still have a savings of 42,000 just from that budget. Now, I'm not saying you change
the structure just for the budget for one year, but I just since we were talking about the budget today, I put that in there. But I I came here earlier today to print off everything, look through it, and I sat down. I just chatted with Maggie and I said, "I wasn't here." She was here. She was here before when
the city ran on a clerk system. She's been here through the admin now. She's been here through the kind of the the bumpy road we've had the past few months. But I just asked like why did the past council switch? Because I don't know. I wasn't here. Um and and how did
it function? And what are your thoughts? Now again, taking the personalities out of it, taking who was elected to council at the time, taking who the employees were in the seats, and I don't know if you kind of want to share or give any perspective on that. And then Tom, because I know you were here too, if if
you'd like to as well. Um, this is why I drew this. Not saying we're going there, just for for discussion with the council. Well, I think we already already know that Maggie and Tom aren't for a city administrator, so I know that the their comments will be positive
towards the clerk going back to that. I know that I've had conversations with Tom about it. >> I would >> and let me and that's totally council member Freley, I'll let you chime in, but if we could just let because it wasn't that's not how I received the I didn't talk to Tom, so I'll just say
that I only chatted with Maggie for a couple minutes because I was here. So, I can't speak for Tom or if he wants to speak at all. But, um, if you want to because there was something very profound that Maggie said that had never really I guess sunk in with me before, but I also wasn't here. I haven't been here before this year. So, if we don't
mind just giving Maggie a couple minutes. >> And Mark, I think you're wrong. I don't think I'm opposed to a city administrator. So, I just want to make that known and for the record. I've seen it work both ways. Now, um, I think it's important to get the right people for the right positions. Um, I don't think
that is, if anybody's talked to me, that's what they hear from me. I feel, and I think Tom and I talked about this at the retreat a little bit, is I feel like prior to the administrator being part of the structure there, I feel like
the staff worked better together. There was a lot more of communication. We were all on the know of what was going on. DDA came and did a organizational structure based on our clerk treasurer that left at that time and had said,
"Hey, maybe it's time to get a city administrator as she's leaving." They came and did an organization kind of assessment like I'll say similar to what we just did. And I think the presentation maybe was
misleading to the council um on what maybe staff had said whether that was true or not. Um and so then we kind of went down that road. I think part of things that you guys have discussed is defining the roles are very important. So no matter what structure you go with
it will be important to define those roles. We talked kind of a little bit about HR and how our personnel policy is set up to make sure that if there is concerns or issues that there's a way to funnel on all levels of staff in the organization for them to get their
concerns addressed or at least reviewed or heard at that point. Uh, I will say that talking with my union, I do know that administrators
are hard to find these days. And so part of my fear is if we go down that road, what happens if it takes eight months or a year and we still haven't found anybody to fill this role? Right or wrong? I do know that we have a
lot of great department heads that work here. They can run tasks and projects and things like that. We hire a lot of consultants and engineers and attorneys to help with some of these projects that if you're looking for a point person,
uh we'll pick on roads. Tom is the point person, you know, like he is in charge of roads and those things. I don't think those projects are going to be left on the wayside because we don't have that level of administration. So,
I'm not for or against it. I just want to make sure that we have the right people in the right jobs and the jobs are defined. The roles are defined. And I will say too, I'm not necessarily for or like either of these. I just brought it up because we were having a conversation today and I thought that's
our role as council. put everything on the table, have a robust discussion, and if we end up where we end up, it's it's not a big deal, right? Like because I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer here. I I really don't. Um both pathways could be viable. The one thing that Maggie did note to me that
this is the one thing that stood with me is for the size of our city, and I know we have a larger tax base compared to maybe other cities our size except for like maybe Cross Lake Breezy people that are in the lakes area. Do we need
do we need someone in a role that is more of a I don't know if gatekeeper is the right word and and and director versus someone that maybe is partially in that role but also is a doer like also as helping um
carry the workload forward because we do have a small staff if that makes sense. you know, having uh if if it whether it's called administrator, clerk, administrator, or clerk, whatever you whatever the council decides on that is
having that person actively have a responsibilities and duties that help with the workload. And and when when Maggie brought that up to me today, I was like, "Oh yeah, you know how I look at that? At my store, I'm the owner, but when I'm in my store, I'm folding clothes. I'm ringing people up
at the cash register. I'm helping put them in dressing rooms. Um, you know, I'm I'm not just popping in and out saying, "Hey, I'm the owner. Great to see you. Thanks for shopping at my store." Like, I'm I'm physically act actually doing work to help my businesses and help my employees. So, anyway, that's that's why I brought this
up. Another thing that changed on it was was taking admin out off of the word in front of clerk. Um, Tom, I don't know if you want to say anything or not. It's completely up to you. I hadn't talked to Tom about this.
So, you know, you said budget's coming up later. Well, it is important. You know, we're, you know, if there's anything we get dinged on a lot, it's how much government costs. And the way I see it is this. Um, you know, for every layer of management you put in, you're
adding complexity and you're also removing yourself from how the work gets done. And to me, the administrator is always one more step removed. You know, it removes the operation of the city from the council. And maybe you like that.
Maybe that's what you want. But I also think it it has cost us more. And you know, kind of I would echo what Maggie said too. Administrators are hard to find. So I I wonder if the administrator you
would attract would be experienced, especially at the wage level we're willing to pay. So are are or are you going to be training another administrator? So our previous administrator was this was our first administrator job. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I mean, if
you're looking to get somebody, you know, who's going to come in here and take charge right away, uh, it's difficult to do if you don't have the experience. Um, I do think, too, some things that you had said, um, your department heads are very well
qualified, like myself, been here a long time. Um, you know, if I was sitting on the council, I would like to hear what those people have to say. a little more direct. Now, I might be biased, and Mark, you're right. I'm a little more
biased to that. I I I liked how our system worked with the clerk. Um I think to your point a little earlier, too. The city has functioned now for close to six months really without an administrator and without a clerk. I mean, well, I
sorry, Maggie, that's I'm not trying to take anything away from you, but somebody who's, you know, that's their specific job. Um I I I thought we functioned well without it. Um I think there's some chaos there mostly just because um we haven't
functioned that way for a while and we have this title of administrator at all in all of our ordinances. So everybody's looking for this person to offer their opinion, but I don't know that it's necessary if this was structure. The money savings to me is attractive. I
mean that's probably where I would hang my hat. Um, and in a smaller organization, um, I've talked about this with a couple of the council members, even in my own department. Um, how many managers do you have per for every one person who's
doing a job? And if we had an administrator, to me, that's just one more. I'd rather have two administrative assistants than an administrator. I think we'd get more out of that. somebody's here to answer the phone and the other one is out sick or on
vacation. >> Um, Council Member Fle, I know I didn't mean to cut you off, so I want to go back to you. Um, but I just wanted to give them each a chance if they wanted to say anything just about about again exploring that as a structure.
I don't know if you have anything else you want to add or to that. Council member London, do you have anything right now? Council member Hall, do you have any >> Yeah, I guess maybe just to bring Mark a little bit more up to speed in in thinking about this. You know, last week
when we met a couple of things um we defined I'll say some areas of bottleneck the way that it had worked in the past where we're like this can't keep working this way where information didn't go from the staff all the way up to the counselor back and forth, you
know. um where citizens from the community call us and say, "Hey, for instance, what about this downtown project?" And I say, "What downtown project?" Don't know anything about it. You know, there's definitely uh we defined some
stuff that just um needs cleaned up to make it work efficient. Also too, where Jesse held up, you know, the policies and stuff there. We talked about some stuff that it's just like, hey, us as a council, we need a little bit more power and authority back to be able to guide
and give direction, you know, here within the city. Uh, one of the things um that we talked about too and Jesse can speak a little bit of too is, you know, um as we look at what the current needs are in the city and also what they
are moving ahead, right? um getting uh more of a economic development committee board formed to help move this city forward. Right? We have the property down there. We have a lot of stuff going. We want to be involved in that in
that decision making process too. and also to what which system would help best facilitate that and you know and also to what person in a role myself I
don't I don't have a big strong preference either way um my goal is to find great people um the savings is attractive right there's a lot of stuff to spend money on but then also to to
make sure that we're we're setting it up to work very efficiently with the people we have. We do have great staff. We do have great departments. We have a lot of history. Nisa is a pretty unique town, too, in that we're not we're not trying
to um change what Nisa is about, but at the same time, we are trying to keep it advancing with time, you know, if that makes sense. and how do we accomplish that? And so I look at both systems and
I see positives and minuses to both. You know, um I think being the small town too, the council interaction with the staff is pretty nice. You know, as I shared, for instance, being on like the public works committee last week, um
there's a presentation given there by WSN that the four of you have yet to see and it involves the park down there. And like like Tom was saying, that's just another step, another presentation, another dollar that we're spending to
come in or I think the current state that the city is in, you know, we need to be um involved ju just like that in the decision- making it comes from the residents to us and then down and kind of reset that. So I guess those are my
two thoughts. >> Yeah, council member Zan I know we didn't talk about this last week so I'm sure you have some thoughts as well. >> The role of the council with department heads. Maggie, could you provide some
feedback as to how that went in the couple years leading up to when that previous council made a decision to switch to an admin? >> Like as far as their interaction or like they had the council liaison. So there was a liaison to every department like
there is today. And so as a liaison, it was encouraged for you to talk with your department as a council and for the department or the staff to talk with your liaison as council to kind of get up to speed on projects and what's going on in your department, pros, cons,
things to work through. So you could kind of bounce ideas off of somebody's head on the council that would be making potentially decisions moving forward. Tom because I was not I'm wasn't a department head at that time. I was under a department head. Maybe Tom can
elaborate more on that piece of it. But that was kind of the structure. And so as a city clerk treasurer at that point, a lot of information did funnel to them because they are the person who created the packets and worked on agendas and
kind of was the keeper of like she did payroll and packets and minutes and things like that. So there was still a lot of I'll say funneling towards the clerk. Um it just at a different level I think from my perspective we all worked well together and if somebody needed
something we're like hey we'll work on that we'll get that done. So I I don't I like I said I felt like there was more communication transparency and we all kind of knew a little bit more about what was going on in different departments. >> You know I like the liaison system. Um,
it encouraged uh those folks to contact staff, you know, just weekly in in a lot of cases. You know, I mean, you weren't running anything necessarily, but that person was getting more of the flavor of what's going on. Um, most of
my liaison would come in and sit and talk to me for a couple hours about what's going on and what are we working on? And, you know, I'd get their opinion, they'd get mine, we'd go back and forth. And um I think I've talked to Joe a little bit about this and maybe Jesse. Um we actually had two liaison to
public works. And so that was part of what formed uh what we called our ERC committee. And so our ERC committee morphed to become the public works committee. And at that time it was just two council members, city engineer and myself were the committee that worked
through the the nuts and bolts of a public works project. That allowed those two council members to understand that project on a much more detailed level. And so if they came in to a council meeting after that and you were voting
on a project that we were doing, you know, if they were strongly in favor of it, you could pretty much guarantee that, you know, they knew what was going to come out of that project. You know, they they had a better understanding of it. Where I think now what's happening is is we come in with a recommendation from a public works committee and unless
you're the council member on there, you don't know a lot about what we're talking about or dealing with. So, you're putting a lot of trust in that one individual of is this what we should do. Um, again, I I just feel like we've just separated the council from a lot of
the decision- making. And I think for some of some people that works because they either don't have the time to put in or they don't want to be that intimately involved. But I think if you're a citizen in this, I want a c I want a council member who, you know, they're not really running it maybe, but
they're at least echoing what I'm asking for as a citizen to the staff. And the staff is telling them, well, this is practically how we can do that. And and there's there's some uh problem solving that happens there that maybe you're not
getting. Now >> what this what this model does is essentially eliminates a layer of bureaucracy and gives the council and department heads more direct direct direct >> I guess >> sorry direct um that one whether or not
HR was outsourced it's it it's kind of it's how we had it but it's not a outright city administrator treasurer it's a administrator clerk So it's like kind of the hi I don't know like the hybrid like we were we were
here we talked about this last week and then this one's a different one right so they're three different but they're not drastically different >> in in you know with the short time with the two interimm city administrators you know that have both been at larger metro lot
larger city structures or whatever they had both both brought up um to myself and Jennifer in conversations too that that with a city administrator and kind of a a hierarchy in a bigger city that the whole liaison completely go away.
>> Yeah. >> That there is zero contact. You know that that that liaison system and whatever doesn't even happen within the city. So Bruce, you're not you're not doing anything with the
police or the fire or whatever. and that we are solely gauged on this one person's um ability to properly communicate both downstream and upstream and that that
completely goes away in that and I guess the way the city of Nisah has been working even with the past city administrator that that hasn't been the case you know there's kind of been this hybrid where that has stayed in place Now,
we've heard a lot of different legal advice over the last 6 months from attorneys to past city administrators to people on is that even legal, how we've been operating in the last seven, eight years in that capacity. And also, I guess for all of us to think about, you
know, um it's still NESA um you know, most of us have grown up here, lived here, whatever. We walk downtown, we know the business owners, we know the people, we know 90% of the names in those chairs right out here, you know,
and are we going to operate with like, oh, don't talk to us anymore. We can't talk to you. Go talk to this. And that's kind of what that model sets up. And so the way that it's been operating really hasn't really been a
structure either that is traditionally set up in any other city. I guess we'll see. >> I I'd actually like to ask council member Freillley because I know you you have been um you know have articulated in previous council meetings that you are in favor of the city staying with
like an administrator structure or an administrator clerk structure versus like um shifting to something else like this one which it draws up. And I'd be, you know, I'd just love to hear too for my own edification cuz I haven't been around as long as you,
you know, getting the uh reasons why. Again, my short-term memory's become horrible lately. So, I'm not retaining everything that's said at every council meeting, but I know you you have been in favor of that and I believe council members on has as well. Um, and so I just, you know, I think it's good conversation, too, and it's good for the
public to hear that, you know, to hear all the different perspectives. Well, I think with everything coming up, there's a lot of changes. Nissa's going to stay nailed, but we are expanding. There might be things that come up that some of the staff can't deal with or we
can't deal with. City administrator, administrator clerk, at least they have their they can look at the development, economic development. They can look at everything, too. uh don't want somebody that's going to micromanage all of the department heads, but keep things going um and be open to
the council. Um what I what I wouldn't want to see is if we went back to a clerk is if someone comes up to one of the council members and says, "Hey, a this is happening." and then that council member gets in a in a in a tizzy and runs down here and
wants everybody to, you know, start snapping their fingers and get that done right away. I I don't want to see that happen. That's that's not that's not productive. But I think to have that leader to have that executive
to look over the dayby-day operations of the city while we're not here, that's the reason why I would like one. No, thank you. Um, do you want to add anything for us? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, his is on.
>> Just like to uh say that, you know, the with the leazison thing and the flow of information back and forth and keep things flowing. I kind of like that idea and we got Maggie in a good spot now and, you know, with the other experience that people have been around for a long time, I think things will go well.
>> Okay. And I know you you have in past meetings to have advocated for an administrator, an administrator clerk, and I have too, but this just, you know, came up today. So, just would love your input as well because I think it's valuable. >> My input's valuable.
>> Yes. >> Um, I'm going to tell my wife that, she'll laugh. >> I just my position on the on the matter is right now trying to set up the city for future success. I don't believe that I'm in the position right now to call to vote on it
tonight. I do however feel like we have an obligation to the staff Maggie to try to get together a true definition for a deputy clerk so we can post that position to help bridge the
administrative burden that is currently ongoing and to continue this and have perhaps a workshop or to be able to discuss it at our next regular council meeting. plenty of great conversation, right? And uh it's good to get
perspective of what happened then to be able to help paint the picture of where we are today and then where we're going to be 2, three, four councils from now. Uh we may not all be on this council in two,
four, eight years. So who will be giving that leadership and direction to the department heads such as they deserve if we were to go to this clerk system. I don't want to I I would fear
of there being a a gap of leadership and I think my take on it at the moment is just to to digest it, >> see where we can support it in the interim which is this deputy clerk position because I think there's
definitely one agreement on both uh scenarios which is that position deputy clerk/admin assistant. >> I'll go to you in a second. I will just say too, we are going to have to continue this meeting anyway because one of the agenda items on here, the road
bond appraisal, um Tom Pearson did not have that yet today. So, we are going to have to continue this anyway into next week. Um so, it'll give more time to digest this as well or this conversation since I just drew that chart whereas we didn't have it last week. So, just noting that, but um council member Hall,
I'll go to you. No, just real quick, I just think, you know, back to Mark, maybe a question back to Mark, too, you know, um you've been on here the longest, you know, and and I'll just use, you know, you have a passion for the parks, you know, and uh done a great
job with the liaison to the parks. I think also brought bring a lot of valuable information upstream, downstream, you know, working with the city administrator. you know, if we look at at the way that's worked, you know, you come in and talk with Amber,
um I I see it working well, see it working positively, you know, just kind of like Bruce, you know, is with the law enforcement and stuff, too. And I would like to keep some of that. I I understand and I agree, you know, too,
that um needs somebody in here to kind of um I don't know, carry it on. like Jesse said, if um if we're all not here, but I feel if we go to a situation where
it is an administrative person only and we lose the personnel committee ability, you know, I feel then also too we lose something and we lose a connection with the city. um a lot of experience, you
know, like yourself in parks, you know, I feel like that would be a loss to the city to not be able to have that connection with the personnel committee on these different topics, different um I'll say projects that we have going on. Even, you know, with the roads, there's
there's so much more that are going into the road bonds these days than it was even three years ago or five years ago. And I feel like we lose some information or perspective without being involved at some level.
>> So I don't know if you have feedback or thought on that. >> No, no, I appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All good dialogue. So I think we for this portion of the discussion, we can continue it. We need a motion though. >> Can I just Maggie? Yep. >> One more thing. So after our retreat, I
kind of reached out um based on Jess's suggestion on outsourcing HR just to see how some other cities operate and how their structure is. So I I did get like a half a dozen responses. So, just to kind of go through that with some of the small cities and large cities, I will
say most cities, uh, their finance department does their payroll and either their city clerk or clerk administrator or their administrator does their HR. I did not find one person who responded to me and I sent this out on Friday, so it's only
a couple days that outsourced HR from within our local communities. And then I have just some fellow clerk finance friends that work in other communities in the city. So just a little bit of feedback on the little bit I've received so far. >> Well, I concur with you because I've
checked too. The majority of them they keep it in house and not out. >> Okay, good feedback everyone. So we need a motion to continue this to well we need to find a date that everyone's available. So, so Tom Pearson said he
was available. He would have the information Friday, but >> I'm out. >> Friday is not a possibility. Monday is not a possibility. Tuesday, we have the town hall. Um, >> I'm out of town Wednesday to Thursday. >> Okay. Um, so that would be So, you're
out of town second, >> first and second. >> First, um, all day the first. >> Okay. And I am tentatively supposed to be out of town on the first as well. Would a morning meeting work on one of those days?
>> Are you back the 3? >> I'm back. Afternoon on the second. >> You're back on the second. >> Afternoon of the 2nd. >> Okay. >> What about >> you two gentlemen? There's a parks meeting. Parks commission meeting at
5:00 on the 2nd. So, we want to be cognizant of that. >> Plant commission meeting on the 7th. Monday the 6th. >> I will be in Rochester the 6th. I can't do the 6th.
We probably don't want to do a Friday, right? Or how about next Monday? Is the 29th an option? Maggie's gone, >> correct? >> She's on.
>> You did something in the afternoon. I would maybe come in if my flight's not late. >> She needs her time off, man. >> Yeah, she doesn't need her time off. >> Get away. Um, >> or can I maybe make a suggestion if we can figure out where we could maybe get
a quorum for this road bond appraisal because I know that we need to get approval. We'll say fairly quickly on that once that quote comes in and maybe this organization we push off a little bit to gather some research. I don't I don't if you're looking for a deputy
clerk position like I can maybe review a job description like from our old past deputy because I used to be the deputy clerk. So, like kind of take that and maybe work through how maybe some of this could be laid out in different buckets based on different positions.
Um, I just don't know what you want from staff on a direction on what I can maybe try and be helpful with. Well, I think we should I mean I think I would well I don't want to speak for everyone, but I think that we all recognize that there's a need we since the deputy clerk is
everywhere and we've talked about it extensively that it would make sense to if we want to make a motion to direct staff or Maggie to get a job description together and then if it comes back at this continuation if all five can't be there if it's just a sign off on it everyone looks at it then at least that
weighs a go um to get that piece moving. I'll second that. >> Okay. Um, is there any discussion about that? About having Maggie start to go to work on the job description for a deputy clerk? >> No. Good idea. >> Okay. Uh, then we'll call the vote. All
those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. I. >> Okay. Motion carries. Okay. Now, let's go back to this date thing. So >> yeah, I guess I'm >> I mean you tell me >> calendars are going to be crazy. I have a feeling coming up. So we just need a
quorum, but we do need Tom Pearson to present this. So >> would Tuesday morning work >> the 30th? Oh, no. It's not >> Tuesday the 30th would work for me. >> Tuesday the 30th in the morning could
can work for me. >> Tuesday morning. >> The 30th. >> Yep. >> Joe, you're the only one that >> Well, I can. Yeah, I can make it work. >> We got a quorum. >> What? >> What time? 8. >> 9? >> Yeah. >> 8?
>> Actually, 8 would be the best for >> 8 o'clock. 8. >> It's fine. Okay. So, >> does that work for you? >> Oh, that doesn't work for you, does it? It >> it it will work for me. However, I'm not probably going to have a job description ready for you to review. So, if you'd
like to review the appraisal piece of that, that is awesome. But tomorrow is my last day in the office until Tuesday. >> So, maybe we just continue it for the appraisal. >> Well, wait a second. >> We got to because we have a lot of stuff here. We have to get to
>> that description could be could I mean outsourced firm DDA source wells. We're not we don't have to reinvent the wheel, right? >> No. And I have a job description that I could prepare, but if you want me to try and figure out like if there's duties
that could come because most likely if I become the finance director, some of the duties that I have are going to go to that position. And I don't I really want to be thoughtful on this. I don't want to just ramrod it together. So maybe for the appraisal that can be
the 30th and if we can I mean even maybe it's the workshop before the council meeting. Not that I really want to wait that long but maybe >> it gives job descriptions created we can those of us that can't be here for a meeting can review it ahead of time and if there's still a quorum it can still be passed. I mean feedback can be given
then. >> Yeah because I think that would work if everyone's in agreement. >> So we have a workshop >> on the 20 Whatever the October, there's one scheduled. It doesn't mean we have to have it the 21st. >> 21st.
>> Oh, it's always >> otherwise if there's something the week of the 6th or the 13th to just get moving on this job description. I don't want to just have meetings to have meetings either, but I want to be thoughtful in some of this as well. No, the on that the topic for that will
be the uh 26 row bond appraisal >> um in order to give adequate time to be able to put together a comprehensive >> job duties and responsibilities with probable consideration for compensation.
>> Yeah. Um, we can try to target some time perhaps the week of the 6. Those of us that couldn't attend it, we can provide feedback via email, right? Just need a quorum to to bless it. >> And Maggie, perhaps you can just send out some dates on the sixth or or for
the week of the sixth. >> Okay. >> And I'm that week I'm free every day except for the sixth. >> Okay. >> Any other day I can make work. >> Tuesday we have a planning commission meeting. So Monday or two, >> but if we did it in the morning or do it in the morning >> or like a 400 p.m. or something? >> Yes.
>> I don't think that I don't think that in itself would take so long. >> No. >> Wednesday, October 8th at >> the morning would work. Great. >> You have a public there's a public works at 5, right? >> On on Tuesday. So >> Tuesday, sorry.
>> Okay. So >> you want to make a motion? The public works is Wednesday at 5 the 8th and planning and zoning is the 7th at 6. Correct. >> Oh 5:30 special. Okay. >> Oh then I have the
>> which is tomorrow. So the October 8th we would be okay. >> Okay. >> Right. And again the topic for that will be as of right now just to
>> clerk >> review and approve the uh job duties and responsibilities for the posting of the deputy clerk/administrator. like to make a motion to uh call a >> continue >> continuation of the
retreat special meeting from September 18th, 2025 for Wednesday, October 8th at 8:30 a.m. >> Well, they open up at 8. They got to turn the coffee on, right?
>> Okay. Wednesday the 8th. Uh I second. Is there any additional discussion? >> I I may not be here. I may be on a job site visit, but just need a quorum. So there's three of us that can make it. That's all we need. >> Um all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Okay. Motion carries. >> So just to reiterate that's Wednesday, October 8th at 8:30 a.m. >> Okay. Um, I think we've covered everything under organization structure, admin, clerk,
finance, department, but I will do one last call from all the council members. Is there anything that anyone feels we missed that you want to bring up before we move on to the next agenda item? Going once, going twice. Okay. The next agenda item that we continued from our
special meeting is are the committees. liquor committee, public works committee, personnel committee, department liaison. We we did talk about this. I don't know that we didn't get into it too too in depth at at the retreat. Um but we continued it to
today. Um >> my understanding of the summary >> from that meeting, if I may, >> yes, >> was that there is still desire to maintain the liquor committee. Um we're actually not even meeting on a frequent basis right now. So
>> we need to um public works committee. Uh we had a discussion and an idea of redesigning that. Shake your head no once I say something wrong. Thanks. of having two council members,
having public works >> director, having uh planning and zoning. Planning and zoning. >> Oh, engineer. >> Engineer. >> Engineer. >> Yeah. >> And then two outside seats.
>> Yep. But two council members. >> So that's total six. and that we would we could look at shifting at our organizational meeting in January since we're already pretty much to October. And then with the personnel committee,
it was to define to have it be more defined because it's kind of loose at this point. So I think >> is there actually anything on the personnel committee that's outlined within this city? >> I could I did a quick search and I could not find anything. The only thing that
popped up was was that back in April that I need to do a little bit more research too, but maybe Joe or Jennifer, there was something that the labor attorney said that we couldn't have a personnel committee, personnel liaison, but I
think that's incorrect because >> committees. Yeah, we could call it a liazison. >> Yes, I I'd have to go look for it. >> Okay. Um, I did reach out to a couple of other mayors in similar size cities to ours just to ask, hey, do you guys have
clear uh a clear outline for what your personnel committee does? Um, and I'll just read you one of these. Um, ours serves in negotiating any union contracts and employee contracts. um the two council representatives act on
behalf of the full council and that they along with in the city the city administrator then make recommendations back to the council for hiring staff at certain pay levels. So if you want to say, you know, grade X, step X, right, whatever it is. Um,
example, we just finished hiring an administrative assistant for the city and the personnel committee negotiated and determine the starting step and benefit package to that council. Uh, and then the council will consider at their next meeting. So the council is the deciding authority, but it just it it it
just takes some of the work off the full council, if you will. And then um they said the committee serves a very important role and helps provide a check and balance to the in their case city administrator and also represents a council. Um so that was what one mayor
wrote me another mayor wrote something very similar. We deal with union negotiations oversee employee review interviews for highle positions um make recommendations to council on salaries. um there is freedom and discussion at the committee level that
are not allowed in an open meeting setting. So I think there is an opportunity for us as a city to actually just define this to put to put something on paper and then have it come back to council um to consider. And so I don't know if
that's if each of us individually want to send our thoughts and then maybe if you know we want to do some benchmarking against other cities, see what they have and and kind of see where we get to a good place on it because again we can
make sh changes or shifts in January but then it doesn't force all this work because I think there's if we had to prioritize things I think we have other things that are more critically important right now like getting this deputy clerk position and things like
that. So, we're not putting too much on just one person at this point in time, but open to feedback or suggestions. Do you have anything? Council member Freilley, Council Member London, Council Mison, >> would you two like to take an initial
stab at what maybe both of you are envisioning since you're on the current personnel committee? >> Yeah. Are you open to that, Joe? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. Could we could we have like maybe until the October council meeting though to do it? Okay. >> And then add that to the October agenda. Um and then at that point I'll do that.
>> Maybe got another city or two or chat GPT. >> Just kidding. >> Yes. >> Um and then another semi-related personnel committee. We had an employee retention committee last year. >> Um
>> popped up in my head. I walked in city hall like two weeks ago. Maggie was at the end of the hall and I looked at the two plaques up there for public safety of the year, employee of the year. Uh we realized that we're actually past that deadline for at least the one that we
set last year to try to coordinate a uh celebration. So perhaps that's something that could be packaged into the personnel committee as well. >> Yeah. And Maggie, do you want to share what So Maggie had sent a email to Joe and I about this and then since I was
here printing off stuff today, Maggie and I had chatted, do you want to share what we we had chatted about just to get perspective from the council? >> Sure. So yes, Jesse came to me and kind of off my radar. So um I reached out to Jesse
just to talk with him and I just said, "We don't have a employee retention committee anymore. How should we handle this?" His suggestion was going to the personnel committee, liaison, however you'd like to define that, and kind of see if the two of you would be willing to coordinate a party. Um, Jennifer and
I talked to day about nominations. Like as staff and council, their nominations or recommendations for employees of the year um would normally go to a city administrator, but as I'm an interim city administrator, does it go to me?
Does it go to the personnel liaison? And so Jennifer and I kind of thought, well, maybe it should just go to the three of us. And then after I think we picked October 10th, >> yes, >> we did >> October 10th for a deadline. So I'll send something out to staff tomorrow just to say, "Hey, if you have a
nomination, we have one for public safety staff, which would be police and fire, and then we have an employee of the year for all the other staff, which does include pickle and spirits." Jennifer questioned that today. So, um, and then we would plan some sort of
dinner social at some point in time, um, beginning of December. Maybe Jennifer and I talked a little bit about whether we combine our staff holiday gathering that we normally have at lunch and this employee celebration if we do one or if
we continue to do separate. Um, I'll say I kind of have I'll say mixed emotions. I don't have a preference one way or another. I do know that it's nice for staff to have the ability to get together with other staff during, I'll say, business hours because it doesn't
always work for staff to get together outside. So, we still talked about potentially doing our lunch gathering from 11 to 1 on some of the days right before Christmas or whatnot. So, um, that was kind of our mindset and Jennifer was going to check with a few
places to see dates and availability for potentially a group of our size. >> Great. Yeah, it's always been on my bucket list to be on a party planning commission. >> Well, I didn't that's what I said to make. I said I don't know that Joe's going to want to call around. So, I I I
can take I can take that one. >> Joe, this job's a open bucket. You know that. >> Yeah. And the only other thing I'd say at Christmas time, wherever the event is, um I would still vote for Tom's homemade ice cream to be a part of it. So that's those are my two comments on
it. >> Tom, >> make homemade ice cream. >> It's fantastic. >> My wife makes homemade ice cream. I'll put that to the test. Okay, >> now there we go. Ice cream contest. >> But yeah, no, I think it's fine with me.
>> So it's on track. >> Yep. >> Awesome. Okay, cool. Um, anything else with the committees from anybody? No. Okay, road bond appraisal we're coming back to. So, now we are at the
Oh, yep. We did make a mo. Didn't we make a motion for the road bond for? Oh, I thought we did. The 30th at 8 a.m. Okay, we did have a motion and second.
Any other discussion on continuing the road bond appraisal to next Tuesday, the 30th at 8 a.m.? >> No. >> Okay, we need it. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> I don't. No. I motioned it. Joe seconded it. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Yep.
>> I wasn't recalling. >> So, I have a continuation. >> I have a continuation for the 2026 road bond appraisal to be on Tuesday, September 30th at 8:00 a.m. here at city hall. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. Now, let's go to the budget.
Um, I gave you to a sheet, right? Yes. >> Okay. So, from our meeting last week, uh, and Maggie, correct me if I'm wrong, are preliminary
is at 6.04%. Um, the road bonds for 2026, Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, our first payment for that won't be until 27. So, that will not impact the 26 budget. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So what I did um and this is just these are just some thought starter ideas. So again you can reject them, you can like them, you can have no opinion. I went through the budget and tried to look for ways that we could potentially find some
savings. Um, and so the fir the first thing I did, and we kind of talked about this, but this will align to this, was to go through the um admin clerk finance proposed budget spreadsheet. And
this is what I talked about when I drew this new chart, that we're at the proposed budget on the wages and salaries line of about 312 or 313,000, if you will. And if depending on whatever the structure is, right? It could be that structure, it could be a
different structure. Um, administrator, clerk, finance director, deputy clerk, HR outsourcing, whatever it is. So, I drew this based on if we were doing that structure over there that we discussed last week and thought that I found a savings of around $40,000.
Um, I I had put on here eliminate the capital reserve in the admin clerk finance budget, but I learned today that that's a new computer for Maggie. So, strike that. We're not going to eliminate that because we need to keep that in. Um,
then the next one I went to was in planning and zoning and I put in there eliminate the capital reserve um that Steven had allocated of 5,900. Okay. So that's So I gave you guys all a
copy of this. Then um I'm going to skip down to parks and community center. Amber had put in a capital reserve of 61,000 for the parks and 24,000 for the community center. Um and so I put in there eliminate that as well. And then
based on those, so I did put other things on the sheet, but there's not dollars to it. Based on those, when I added all that up, unless I did my math wrong, I saw a total savings to the budget of around 131,000. And Maggie has indicated that 20 every
25,000 is about 1% to the levy. So, if I did my math right, that would bring the preliminary levy from 6.04% down to 8%. So, under 1% for a levy increase for 2026.
Um, I don't know if I did my math right, but I thought I would just take a stab at something as I was going through it just to get the conversation started. I don't know if anyone has input, feedback, or thoughts, but I know Joe, you had some thoughts as well to the budget that you
had mentioned you wanted to share today. And Jesse, I think you had some thoughts as well. Mark, you weren't at the retreat. So, I don't know if you had additions and council member London, I don't know if you did either. So I don't know if anyone has any initial reaction on just some of the things that I
mentioned. >> Yeah. Um with what you had mentioned, you know, on the slide there, there was the ability to um with this new law coming up paying 100%
or 50% for um >> the state state uh legislature. >> Yeah. the state legislature. >> Um I thought that was one that we could look at save some money with. Um >> you're talking about you're talking
about Minnesota. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The paid family >> paid family leave that goes into effect in January. >> Yeah. That would go into effect in January. >> And so um I would say on that um you know
up for discussion from my viewpoint. You know, >> Maggie, do you know what line item that I or is that not on uh what Joe's talking about? >> It's on everybody's line item. >> Oh, it's on everybody's line item. >> Yes, I can pull up the sheet. Joe, just
>> you had that other sheet that had it broke out just separately. >> And if I remember the number correctly, it was right around 12,000. >> Yes. >> It was real close to that. >> So, that would be a savings of 12,000. >> Yeah.
You know, another Can I jump? Yep. Go. I like Oh, >> it wouldn't be a savings of 12,000 >> be savings of 50% of that. >> Yes. >> Because the city is required as the employeeer to pay. 044% of it.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Another one that caught my attention was if you pull up the 2026 budget summary citywide um the attorney line so legal
>> going so 2025 current budget it's $35,000 26 future year budget $50,000 assumption is Maggie you increased it because we've had some higher expenses this year um >> yes right now we're sitting at almost
$47,000 through the end of August for attorney fees. >> And that's city attorney and labor attorney. >> Correct. >> So, it's all the planning and zoning. It's everything basically. >> No, it's not planning and zoning. >> Oh, it's not. Okay. >> Nope. This is just city business. I will tell you that I did receive a letter
from uh our city attorney that their hourly increase will be going up. >> Okay. >> A little bit. I did my best, I'll say, guess judgment knowing that hopefully we don't have so many labor discussion issues next year
with staff not turning over. So, you know, if we get back to a >> a $40,000 mark, um, and again, depending on development and things like that, but that's where my best guess was based on where we're sitting on August. I think
it'll go down because like you said, we have had a lot well the administrator turnover and so that's caused the labor attorney to spend a lot more extensive time on the city. Labor attorneys even said to me many times if you guys weren't having this turnover, we'd barely talk, right? We talk for union
negotiations and maybe something here or there and that's it. >> But to that point then, can we instead of having $50,000 for a budget for attorney? >> Mhm. Any objection to putting it back down to 35 or Okay. >> I
>> I don't know what uh city attorney's increase in hourly rate is. So maybe 40,000. >> I'd say 40,000. >> I would say 40. Mark, what do you think? >> Shaves 10 grand. >> 10 grand
the numbers. Yeah, I'm I'm finding a 40,000. Um, >> that's a $10,000 savings. >> I do have a Can I keep going? >> Yeah. And I have a question for Tom, too, when you're done. >> Uh,
>> it's that email. >> Chief Samansky, in regards to the flot cameras, is that a is that a mandate by Croman County or the state? And if not, do you do you believe that the proposal
by the mayor is or is that something you're comfortable with? >> Oh, I don't know if he knows what I had >> I have not seen the proposal. >> This is what I had said, Todd, and and and I I had just said because I was looking for ways to find savings. So, if Crowing County is putting two in the county, and
we don't know if they're going to be in NISA, right? if they're putting two in the county, is there an opportunity for us to learn and see how they do in 27 with their flock cameras and we maybe postpone a year if that if you feel that they're
really important and critical for NIS. Well, we all want to support the police department, right? Is is it something for those flock cameras that maybe we could pull uh from the capital fund reserves? I don't. So, it's kind of two questions
in one, if you will. >> Yeah. Um, I guess to answer part of yours, it's nothing that's required in any way whatsoever. Um, I think it'd be an added benefit for the community. Um, the county, I'm not sure exactly where they're at
with it, but they're in the process at least if they haven't already got some up. Um, I don't know where they are yet or anything. We certainly check with them and wait a year and see how it's going for them and then kind of jump on board or not. I guess if if anything
changes from that information. >> Would would you constitute that? C I remember you stating at the last meeting, Todd, that there was going to be an annual subscription. Is that right? >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. So, so, but with this $15,000, this $15,700
if I'm not mistaken, that covers just the camera. The subscription will follow the following year. >> No, the part of that was the capital outlay, correct? >> Yep. Some of it is um capital outlay that gets put into their capital reserve
account. So, the flock cameras is only 8,500 of that 15,700. the other pieces like computers, guns, you know, as you start to save for repair replacements of tough books and their quads and things like that. So
8,500 is for the flock cameras, the installation and the first year of the annual subscription, which is 3,000 per camera. >> 3,000 per camera for a yearly subscription. >> And we got two, right? >> If we were to get two, >> if we were to get two, >> it would be 6,000 per year for two. That
includes uh maintenance, access to all the systems, any repairs if a vehicle were to slide off the road and take it out, anything like that. So, >> what do you guys have in your
>> in my number though? This on this sheet, it doesn't I didn't actually pull this out. >> Okay. >> So, that so this number doesn't include this. Just just FYI. So, I still got below 1% without actually removing the flock cameras, even though I listed it on the sheet.
>> Got it. >> Okay. >> I I know you have a perspective on >> with that too. Um I had generally made just couple inquiries. Um we can talk offline. I think there'd be some interest in the community
supporting something like this for donations to um on the flock cameras. I do think it'd be important >> to have in this town. Nice feature safety. Yeah. So, I I think that there's probably
>> um a few different options for the flock cameras to still move ahead >> without necessarily increasing the budget. Yeah, I >> agree. On the flock cameras. Um back real quick. Um, Jennifer, with your sheet here, I agree with the uh 5900
with the planning and zoning um that you had put on there. Um, down to parks. I agree with that, too. But Mark, you weren't at the meeting on Thursday and we had a discussion on funding the parks
um and kind of getting that kicked off. that now is maybe not the time to have that oldest orcs discussion or get you up to speed on, but we could have later. So Mark, the reason I had put on there to remove the the uh contribution to the
capital reserve from the parks and the community center are because when I was looking at the balances that are already in the capital reserves, we have 150,000 151,000 almost in the community center budget and 208 in parks. And I know it's
important you want to keep adding to them because right now it's not the balances aren't enough to to do anything. But since they're not enough to do anything, adding this and setting it aside, increasing the levy that much on folks when we're still when we're trying to when we're considering these
multiple different pathways is the going to implement a loss local option sales tax. Is there a fundraising initiative that right that there's all these pathways since we know we have that money set aside instead of making the rainy day fund a lot wider
why don't we give the taxpayers a break here for a year because we're still exploring these other pathways so it's not to diminish or say the parks aren't important just I just wanted to be clear on that >> but then also to potentially use some other money yeah in the city to actually kick the parks off and go ahead and be
like okay here you go to get just fundraising going >> and maybe >> I know that Jennifer had said about using the reserves to pay for the playground part of it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yes. >> 100%.
>> I I I had a I have a proposal that we move. >> So >> I like it. >> So our our cash position everybody received that. I correct. Yep. >> Yep. Everybody receive the same sheet from Maggie. Our cash position
in the city. I I received it, but I didn't that didn't come through on mine for some reason. I've been having some weird things happening to some of my emails. >> 7.6 million. >> Okay. And to
dissect some of those numbers, Spirits Fund right now one point and these numbers are are current. Because >> as of August, August 31st. >> Yes, that was my last bank wreck. >> Well, >> so >> plus or minus 1%.
>> I would guess. >> Okay. Minus 1%. It never goes plus until the tax money comes in. >> Yeah. >> Um spirits 1.18 million. Our general fund unreserved 1.4 million. Total between those two is
$2.6 million cash. And those are sitting in money markets if I'm not mistaken. Correct. Yes. >> Do you have any idea if we're getting any return on that? >> Yes, I'm sure we are. >> 04. >> Probably something close to that.
>> Okay. >> Um so then with that, Tom has a awesome little honey hole uh allocated for the roads, but just want to make that clear. Um, but that is also
a seven figure number at $1.4 million. Just adding those three up alone, you're at 4 million, $47,000. So, um, idea that I had, uh, Mark was to move $500,000 from the spirits fund, um,
which originally was held, I believe, under the precipice of city of Nisah building a new liquor store. Um, after some discussions that Mayor Carneahan and I had with both Brian and Terry, I don't believe that
that's going to become a reality. Uh, we also are, as Council Member Hall mentioned at the strategic plan session, we're one of we are the last state in the union >> that has municipal liquor exclusivity.
We don't know how long that'll last. Uh, we have two very good businesses. Spirits is a very profitable one and we're working to try to get the pickle up to that par two. So, one, don't foresee us building a new Spirits. Uh, we have a lease agreement in place for a
few more years. >> 2029, I believe, >> and a few more. Yeah, a few more years. Um, which may be getting renewed uh based off the expansion. So, our thought was take some of those funds, have that be
the city of Niswah's contribution to the parks project and uh let that be hopefully enough of a bang to be able to get the park project moving forward and then uh Mayor Carneahan's point in regards to replacing some of the uh existing aging equipment in there uh
perhaps from the unreserved fund. But uh going back to the the whole gist of it, we we have a pretty sizable cash position. Uh it's not like we want to blow through surpluses. Uh the cash position helps with the bondings. Uh the good ratings I would get, we had a very
nice rating last year. Uh but we are in a um we're in an interest rate uh reduction right now probably for the foreseeable future. Uh at least another year and a half to two years. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't start to
strategically deploy some of these cash reserves. Um, a modest amount perhaps, but specifically uh leveraging the liquor sales in this town to go and benefit the the young families and the children to be able to go enjoy a city
park, I think is an outstanding move and would be a great start. >> So, you're saying 500,000 >> put towards the parks. >> No, I'm not state. I'll clarify. I'm not stating that there's 500,000 in any pot. >> Yeah, I was confused.
>> But, uh, there is 1.186 million in the Too many piece of paper. 1.186 million in the Spirits of Nisah um account to to transfer 500,000 over to the parks
and give Amber and that parks committee Oh, >> Amber's not here. Well, I know right now with the with the parks if so so you everybody knows with the parks. So if we were to just the talk with the parks committee
recently has been how much would it cost to keep exactly what we have? You know, keep the rink how it is. You know, just changing the chiller system and that sort and just keeping the playground with no expansion. And that
is you're looking at $2 million. >> Yeah. Amber gave us the Oh, >> did she give you the she gave us this at the retreat last week, but she also had in here just like maintenance needs just to replace the playground. She had 200 to 300,000. So, we were thinking,
you know, when we went over and met with Cross Lake and how they were talking like give the community one when we put our own money. And that was the other discussion too with with with the committee too is is to start uh uh uh breaking it up so piece by piece which has been the discussion for a little
bit. Um but I think if we can get the playground done by 2027, I think that would be a great boost. I think >> be a huge one for the community. >> Absolutely. Um, another thing on the
liquor side too that I discussed was I think the city it would be in the best interest for the city of Niswah to wean itself off of the levy contribution that we get on an annual basis from uh both the pickle factory and spirits. Uh I believe total contribution on an
annual rate is >> it's like 350. >> Oh, it was 290 that. Yeah. >> Oh, you're right. >> My my point that I I brought up prior, Mark, was if the municipal exclusivity is lifted,
>> that would be that would be a significant >> which they've been talking about for 40 years. Yes. >> So So my proposition is to wean our wean the city off of that over a 5year uh time frame. 20% per year. Um, which means that that's going to be
>> living correct. >> But, um, I I I don't think we should start that in the 26 budget year, though. I think we should postpone if we're going to do that.
>> Um, and it would be nice to have just an analysis of like just alone what that would do to the levy each year. So, I'm not saying no to it. I just think could we get a little bit more information and and if we're going to wait to do it anyway for 27 to be the first year, we don't have to rush and have this done by
the 30th of September. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> I'm good with that. >> 45,000. Um, what was the other one? >> Um,
did we I had a question for Tom, but I can wait till you're done. No, go ahead. >> Where's Tom? Oh, Tom, in under general government buildings, there's a line item that says professional services and the 25 budget is 8,000, but then for 26
proposed, it's it goes to 20,000. I was just curious what that is, but then like in 20 Yeah. So, I just didn't understand what that was. Um, see, so
I I believe what that is, if you look back at the prior year's professional services, you'd see they're all 23, 24, and 25 are significantly over $8,000. So, it's an attempt to get more in line with what we're actually spending on that.
>> Okay. Um, the one thing with government buildings is it's not all public works expenses. So, I'm not sure what all the expenses are in the professional services there. Uh, what I could say would be included
in that is for instance the engineering for this building. >> That was the only question I had. Stephen, in regards to the capital outlay for planning and zoning, what did the $5,900 constitute? again if you could please.
>> Maybe I can lean on me a little bit for some of that, but I know that the 5900 is an average built out to 2032 for various things uh that are on the horizon like a comprehensive plan, future housing study, future land use study, um permitting software, which
we've discussed earlier this year. So, I'm still in the process of um looking for a solution on that realm. uh have had conversations with Maggie about um a software that we already have in house and maybe just adoption of a new suite
that been syntax to that. Um some of the other items in that capital improvement budget are logged in here. Um >> I have the capital improvement plan up here for planning and zoning. So, future
land use map, housing study, comprehensive plan. We have a computers two plural. >> So, that's in a four-year cycle. Um, and we've had conversations too about like the necessity of the permit computer
here. Um, I feel like the planners laptop, depending on where things go as far as personnel in my department goes, um, if we just got a dock, that could easily replace the computer need at that counter. I could just take my computer from my desk, dock
it in there, and then go. Um, other than that, there's ordinance revisions in there. Um, there's nothing under the other budget. That's just kind of more anything that you guys can think of yeartoear, but this is ideally a
10-year um rolling comprehens or uh capital improvement plan. Um with the turnover in my department, I think we stopped adding things after year 32. So this is currently just looking at the
next seven years, five, six years. So food for thought, but that would be what we are budgeting for is on the short-term horizon. And then future needs that might find themselves into 2033, 2034.
The balance on the capital improvement plan, I think earlier this year was floating right around 60,000. So >> I don't know if the you guys have that thing. >> Was it 52? 52 52 15418.
Mhm. >> Joe, do you have a you're the planning and zoning leazison. Do you have any thoughts? >> Yeah, I mean some of this stuff, you know, like for instance, housing study, future land use map study, all that study. I would say, you know, too with with everything that we know is going
on. Um, I would say that we would want to pause on doing any of that until we we know and understand how um this economic development uh >> I was going to add into that too. Yeah.
>> Might might come into play. And I think I think for a lot of these items, this will be a start of driver and th this list of priorities might rapidly change once we actually implement something like that within the city. So that's
where that's where, you know, I'm say let's pause on this. Let's let's figure out how to do this correctly and then re revamp a budget afterwards if that makes sense.
Yeah, I'm not terribly nervous about the removal of it as long as it's, you know, we're paving the road forward. You know, through 2026, I think we can figure out a lot of moving pieces that are on our plate right now. EDA, um, what we're looking at for the
comprehensive plan that might drive the needs for a land use map study, housing study, all of those other things that could become components of it. But um in conversations that I've had with my liaison um too we were kind of thinking gee the
an establishment of an EDA would really help on a lot of a lot of these frontics. So >> yeah, the other main thing, you know, I mean with this economic thing too, I I think it all starts with that comprehensive plan, you know, that that
but that's a bigger council discussion. You know, a it's not being followed. B, it was kind of a a lame duck from the start um when that was done last time. And um
that would be kind of the what I would see is the found the foundation work that the city needs to do with this economic development committee again trying to get that put in place adjusted. So we're actually using that throughout the city
but I don't know that we know any of that information right now. >> I think it's for this body to pave forward. Um I in my role in planning and zoning I have to frequent the comprehensive plan that we do have adopted. Um in every variance application ordinance revision um we
need to establish findings of facts that tie back to it. Um so if it isn't you know being followed on certain avenues that makes it kind of clunky to say the least in my process. So if uh there's stuff that doesn't hit
the mark in there, identification of what those things are would be great feedback for my department. The other thing I know we had voted on last time is, you know, to reach out to the to the county to see if they could help in any of these areas and get some
budget numbers back from them to also help guide us as we um move forward in all these areas, you know, and that might be a possible budget thing to come up, but you know, we don't have that information at this time, too. So I, you
know, I'd say to just pause on this and just talk about this as a bigger hole over the next 6 months to a year and kind of put a plan together. >> Right. So you need direction from us though before you leave because we've
got to get the prelim we have to have the preliminary levy set by September 30th. And I know everyone's clear on this. Whatever we set it at, you can't go up, you can only go down. >> So being cognizant of that as well. But you
you all need direction from council, right? Because you're going to be gone. And then September 30th is next week. >> Yes, I am going to be gone. I'm going to state this again. And I'd like a little bit of I'll say
cushion as we work through the next few months to maybe fine-tune some of this. Um I don't want to set it I'll even go back to Jennifer yours a 8% and feel like we
are locked into that. Um, I know we have a lot of stuff. So, unless you're going to make a motion to kind of I mean, you could set a preliminary today and we can still work through the next few months before we set our final. But again, you cannot go up, you can only go down. So, if we are
fine with the 6% knowing we're going to wiggle down or if you're going to throw some cushion in there, um, I am going to again reiterate, let's see if I can find my sheet. Um these are the things the paid family leave law union contracts.
Um the organization of our department or clerk admin finance. Um there was a couple trainings block cameras. I think we kind of touched on some of that. Um I received a call from Exona which is our IT department yesterday
and it seems like maybe our past administrator had been working on a timeline of updates to um our security, our firewall servers and things like that. And the rough estimates I received at 3:30 yesterday are
about $50,000 for some of this stuff. I'm going to talk with Todd a little bit more on and kind of regroup on some of this because some of it is required for the PD to have for BCA compliance and federal
things. Maybe talk can talk more on that. Um, but we do have our servers at city hall and PD that need to be replaced next year at some point. And they're estimating the labor, the licensing, and the hardware to be
>> $40,000. >> Um, so I'm trying to wrap my head around what is going on. >> Yeah. and um and maybe this is a great opportunity to use some of those reserves for this next
year. I don't want to short change us knowing that some of this stuff they're telling me we need to do this year. So again, I'm not sure what the past discussions have been with past administrators, but it sounds like it's been a discussion over the past couple years setting up this plan. So, um, and
PD there is a time issue with some of their security and upgrades as well. >> What is what is the dollar? >> 50,000 roughly. >> Yes. I have licensing and hardware for two servers. So, one at city hall and PD.
>> Maggie, not not of this. Sorry, I got to finish my question. >> Yeah. What what is the dollar value of a 5% preliminary levy set? Is each percent truly $25,000?
>> It's a roundabout >> around >> average an average. It's a good estimate to have. >> So like 125 roughly. >> Yes. So, back on that sheet you had up >> real quick,
>> this one. >> Yeah, just on that one, that top one that would cut by about 6,000 >> and then yes to the 1,200, but we said to take that out of cash, correct? >> Yes. >> So, put that at zero. >> So, put that at zero. The next one, the
building code training, I would say no to that. We don't need that right now. We don't know when that's coming up, you know. It's just a it's an expense that we don't have to do right now. Um
the next training that is septic Stephen, correct? >> No, that's uh AICP certification. So, American Institute of Certified Planners. >> Okay. Kind >> of a high managerial training. So, >> and then we had talked about the flock
cameras. So we'd go from 27,000 roughly >> 6,000. >> Well, yeah. 67,000,000. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So we cut off that. >> I again I'm a broken record and we don't
want to box anyone in because I understand the levy can only go down. It can't go up. But based on some of the things that were brought forward today and the ideas and then the worksheet that I gave you guys and I realize my numbers might be off slightly, but I know we're we can't set it today at
point8. I realize that's not realistic, but five is still a little high for me. I'd like to show a commitment to the people because we did just do a lot of work in going through this to set the preliminary levy at 3% and then let's deliver lower than that. I'm just one opinion, but that's where
I'm at. You got to remember we haven't even >> I know we still have to go through I know I understand but that's where I think there's there's still room there. >> I >> I'll sit back um I've set the preliminaries before so I'll just sit
back and see what everybody else has to say >> Bruce >> where we are >> okay >> the 6.04% 04% that we discussed at the last >> it wasn't at the strategic planning, it was at the workshop. >> Workshop.
>> Okay. Um >> that's where we are if we do nothing, right? Like we do nothing and yes, we don't know the union contracts yet, >> but we do have healthy cash reserves. >> Yeah. I just don't want to and my
workload I don't want to miss something and that is my I don't want to set it so low that wonder if my 6.04% just being a little overworked is maybe not accurate. That's why I want a little bit of cushion moving into a preliminary
and we can always fine-tune it as we work forward. I don't you guys you're the council, you do whatever you want. I'm just telling you where I'm standing trying to put this budget together and I don't want to miss anything and the and it's just like and everyone I totally
hear you and we don't want to disrespect what you're doing because you're working so hard. My lens I just think I'm just like against taxes in general. 3% to me even is high. I mean 6%'s high, 10%'s high, but again I'm one vote and I
probably won't vote if the four of you go a different way and I don't need to vote anyway. But I you guys have heard why I'm >> just you know some past perspective on it and Mark can talk to this the preliminary level he's been set at 18% >> 20%
>> comes in a lot lower than >> pretty high and so I think the lens of the community might be hey you know at 6% it's never been preliminary set that low that I know of in the recent years
unless staff knows something different but I I don't think the preliminary has ever even been set at six. That no, from from the data that I remember over the last 10 years that we've been showing, it's always been at least a double-digit number, if not over
20% at sometimes. >> That's like when I worked at General Mills, they had this thing like this and that covers, but like you don't sand big and say, "Hey, we're only going to grow our business unit this year by 3%." And all of a sudden at the end of the year, you grew your business unit by 12%.
Right. Like, you know what I mean? >> Perspective. >> Yeah. >> But someone can make a motion if anyone. >> The other thing, too, is if if if if you set the the budget, >> say we set the preliminary budget at let's just say six,
then we do work contracts and other things come in and all of a sudden, boy, it we should have set it at nine because we came in at 875. One, you don't have a balanced budget because you can't go up. Two,
then next year you're going to have to levy double what you were short to just come to even. So, you're better off. >> I remember Jesse and I were here and we set it just under 20%, it came in at 8
something at the end. Just because it's set high doesn't mean that's where it comes in. So just a word of warning. >> Well, I mean on that note, the wages last year, >> right? And that didn't come to
determination, I don't think, until November. I was on personnel committee during that time and it came in it came in like almost right at the last time or last window possibly before the final levy had to be set.
>> Yeah. Well, in and to be respectful of Maggie's schedule two and time and what she's asking, if one of you would like to make a motion um because this is the last item that we continued and it would behoove us to to
get her something today since this >> Well, Madame Mayor, would you like to set the preliminary? >> I don't think anyone here will agree with the percent that I'm at. So, that's why I'm asking if one of you wants to make a motion um you guys can do that. I won't vote on it. Um, you've kind of
heard where I'm at, but I also haven't been on the council before, so I understand things can change. Again, I'm trying to be respectful of everyone, but I'm also trying to be respectful of taxpayers. I mean, I went to all these doors and I can tell you the one resounding thing that I heard over and over and over was how the levy is just
crushing people. >> I noticed and I've said that. So, my perspective on it will never change. But that's why but I'm trying to be uh inclusive and considering of what everyone's saying here including uh Maggie who's just doing a tremendous amount of work. So
>> and and and I've made that comment too. I'm not a tax person. I and and I hate to see us taxing people off their property and out of their homes. >> So I don't think you want me to make the motion because I don't think it'll pass. >> Well then that we may not have balanced budget either.
>> Anyone else has a motion you'd like to make with with the rate here? Um, feel free. >> Yeah, I guess at this point kind of only knowing limited history and what I do know how high it is. Like I say, that
preliminary number that Maggie has in there at that 6%. I think that, you know, knowing we still have the contract negotiations and stuff too, that I would be fine at that number. And like you say,
from the lens of the public too, it's never been set that low that I know of with it the data that I've received in the past from going back 10 years. >> So is that a motion? >> Right. So yeah, I'd just make a motion that we just stay at that 6% at this
point knowing that we're going to come down. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Is there any additional discussion on this preliminary levy motion? >> Just just be aware if if if it comes in
and we do need nine just saying so we'll have to do some cutting. >> I think I think Maggie we're not listening to Maggie to put the cushion in there. So but that's fine. So we're setting it% >> have cushion. >> Okay. I'll Well, we've got a motion. Oh,
do you have additional discussion? >> So with 6.08 08 >> does the 6% have cushion based upon what we've discussed >> if you're looking to cut some of those things that's your cushion so you're looking at I'll say the 6500 of paid
family leave um attorney fees is coming down 10,000 so you're looking at 6500 minus the flock cameras is 8500 so you're looking at 20 there's a percentage and then capital reserve for
planning in zoning is 59 and you have building code which is 3,000 and then zero for the clerk minute thing and then I maybe didn't get a clear direction on parks and community center. I know we talked about switching some money which I could add to the
October agenda for because I'm guessing we need a resolution to transfer those funds and do what we need to but I think we have a little over a percentage based on those few things as long as the council was in favor of that. >> The parks in the community were too the
biggest thing that was >> Yeah, that's00000 >> 61,000 in the parks capital reserve and 24,000 in the community center. And then I also had put in based on where we end up here with the admin clerk,
>> deputy clerk or finance director, right? Sorry, I'm saying it wrong, but you know what I mean. That if that really isn't 312, if that all of a sudden, let's say, becomes 270, 260, 280, that there will be a savings potentially there, too. And so for the parks, are you looking to just go back to the capital reserve of
what we budgeted for last year or are you looking to cut all of that? >> My motion was to cut it >> or not a motion, my idea >> idea >> conversation >> like maybe you just don't increase the contribution to the capital reserve if
you're looking to cut. And then I I will say like I know that you talked about moving 500,000 from spirits to the park master plan. >> We can do that at a later date, >> but that yes, and we can do that. Um, however, the community center is not
really part of the park master plan, and I do know that there's carpets and flooring and bathroom remodels and things like that. So, I don't want to sell that piece short. So, is it >> But that's what I'm saying. And that's why so that the reason Maggie I was saying like just eliminate the
contribution to the capital reserve in 26 is because the community center has 150,000 sitting in their account and parks and recreation has 28,000. So if we took a year off and didn't put anything aside, we don't need to grow
that rainy day fund bigger at this point because I said we're we're pursuing these other pathways, right? uh transfer from spirits. Uh the local option sales tax discussion will come on the agenda in October. We had the discussion at the retreat about is there a way to reignite
or or ignite a fundraising for the parks like other communities do and so taking a year off from putting that money in the capital reserve. >> No, I I have your perspective. I just didn't get a whole lot of feedback from anybody else like nodding heads or oh yeah, we could do that or so. I just
want to make sure that I'm not just taking direction from one, I'm taking direction from everybody because there's not really a whole lot of motions at this point. So, >> I'm trying to follow based on what everybody's kind of nodding and agreeing to. >> Are you looking for agreement?
Kind of everybody like, hey, we're in agreement with those thing. Like I know I listed them off and you guys were all in favor and then I coming to parks and community center and I just want to make sure are we zeroing that out or just going back to what we contributed last year looking for
feedback from the other four of you. >> I think we'll know more as the uh >> okay >> next month or two go by before we set the final levy, but we have some ideas as to how it could go. Okay. Uh, in regards to the cash that's in the
community center fund, um, I think that's enough for the time being in the event that something pops up, whether that was cut entirely or the numbers brought down by 50%. For the capital outlay, excuse me, for 26 and
then similar for uh, similar for parks >> possibly. >> Okay. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page as we move forward. But I think the preliminary at 6.04 Joe to your question I think there is some
wiggle room based on some of the things that you guys have narrowed down today. We do have a lot of unknowns still that we need to work through and we'll just I mean we all want a balanced budget at the end of the day but like I said maybe for some of this Exona server stuff
maybe it's taking some of those reserves but you know Jesse to your point it's not great to exhaust those because it's hard to rebuild them. Okay so we have a motion and second do we have any other discussion? Okay then all those in favor of setting
the preliminary levy at 6.04% 04%. Um, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed signify by saying nay. >> Nay. Okay. So, it carries. >> So, Bruce or or I'm sorry, Mark and
Jennifer, you are naysay. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, the last thing is a motion to adjourn. Before we do, I just want to make a friendly reminder to anyone who's watching or here in person that we do
have our fall town hall meeting next Tuesday, September 30th, over at the community center from 5 to 7:00 p.m. There will be a variety of topics. Um, and then anything the public wants to bring up. So, with that, does anyone have anything else? Otherwise, a motion
to adjurnn would be in order. >> What? No, next Tuesday the 30th from 5 to 7:00. >> I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I.
I. >> Okay. Our meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Wait for it.