is free. >> Call the meeting order. Roll calls, please. >> Councilman Nordby is absent. Council member Woods >> here. >> Council member McKenzie >> here. >> Council member Schwar >> here. >> Mayor Monkey >> here. Thank you very much. I have a
motion to adopt the agenda, please. >> So moved. >> So moved. Council member Swear. >> I'll second. >> Second. Council member McKenzie. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Topics this evening. We have two topics on our order tonight. Uh
first item up is 2026 budget and levy budget discussion and certification of levy discussion. I'll turn that over to our finance director Dan Winnick. >> Mayor council members. Uh tonight we have to have a discussion on where we
want to set our maximum levy um for 2026. And again maximum levy means um that's the most um that we can uh approve in December. Um we certainly can have discussions and lower it down. Um but it ends up becoming our maximum
levy. A lot of the material you're going to see tonight you've already seen before. So I'm going to kind of walk you through it. ask any questions um that you want. And then at the end of this, there's a couple of slides that are new. Uh the very end is is new. Um and then
uh there's a slide in here uh that'll show you kind of a comparability of um about week and a half, two weeks ago, uh where uh cities in um Ramsey County that responded um are kind of projecting
where their uh levy is going to be. Again, it's subject to change. They go through the same processes that we're going to. They can change on their maximum levy, and they also can change again when it comes into uh approval in December.
So, we're going to kind of tonight we're going to look over that proposed levy, where we're at, um property tax impact, the general fund budget, HR, and EDA levies, and then um there's some budget items, and then for discussion and direction from city council. Uh so where
where we're at right now in a combined city H EDA is we're at a 5.84% levy increase. Um our city um has a number of components that is it makes it up. It's the general fund and you can
see the general fund has only gone up about 20 a little under $29,000 or about a half a percent. Um and then we have street maintenance park and asset preservation which uh asset preservation is for our facilities. That's those
three components are for our infrastructure. So you're seeing the street maintenance is going up 54,000. Park is going up 46. Asset preservation $142,000 from 2025. And then there's the debt component. And you're seeing that that
goes up 194,000. We've just issued uh earlier this year the 2025 uh street and and uh utility reconstruction project bonds. Um so that's where you're seeing makes up that HA and EDA. We're keeping
them the same as we had in 2025. Um I will be meeting um I think next week at the EDA just so that they're aware of what we're proposing and making sure that they're comfortable um with that. How did we achieve this 6% city levy?
So, we're overall 5.84, but the city's um piece with debt and the infrastructure in the general fund is the 6% and that was the target that our city manager set um for staff to achieve to. And um if you remember last year, we
transferred $131,000 of penalties that we received from our electric. Um, so we're going to continue to do that. Um, moving our EBA removal um to the from the general fund to the asset preservation fund and then u we're
restoring enterprise transfers uh that amounted to $65,000 um into the uh general fund. And then uh those total um about $290,000 or 3.69% 69%
levy reduction to achieve that 6%. That 6% you know really what you're seeing is if you look at the bottom part here on this slide it's the infrastructure um that amounts the infrastructure is a
5.6% um change and I'm going to back up here. Add that 5.6% 6% to 3.7 and you're really looking at like a 9.6% levy um increase.
That's what you're basically going to be faced with year after year after year um due to the fact that you're going to be funding that CIP or the infrastructure components to it. And that that takes in that right now is if nothing changes in
that infrastructural plan that you've you've already had a few meetings on. In other words, things aren't being added to it because then we would need additional funding. Yes. >> Do we anticipate that things like the asset preservation going up $142,000?
Um is that going to continue to be the case? >> Correct. >> Okay. So the 10-year financial plans, what the dollar amounts that we have set are every year all the way throughout the plans. The only one that'll sunset a little bit earlier will be the street
maintenance one. Okay. >> Um that one will that one we've already had in place for a few years. Um so that you've got about eight more years on that one. Um and then we won't have to be increasing. Um, and that one, that one I think is like,
uh, overall I think it's streets is now 3.2% of the levy. Um, so that'll end up um, dropping off in about eight years. And again, um, you always have the choice to reduce things that are in the
CIP. um you know uh you know just for an example the street program that you know was developed um there wasn't one there there was always the plan of every other year doing a major reconstruction project and bonding for it there wasn't
that off year in doing milling overlays and some utility work on those components you remember we had WSB and Morgan here saying that hey you know it first started off you needed you about a million dollars on the street side to it and then a corresponding amount in the
three utilities that are affected, water, wastewater, and surface water. Um, but he put together a report and at that point in time, our road rating wasn't increasing. Um, we were kind of maintaining and so, uh, we asked Morgan
last year to kind of look at that again and say, how do we start to move that needle on our our, uh, our road rating? And that's where he came up with that we would need $2 million on the street side to it and then a corresponding amount amount again in those three utilities.
That's where we're at right now, which generates that need for that 3.2% levy increase um component to it. >> So, we're paying for the sins of not having the CIP a while back. So, we're not that's pretty much because we didn't have the funds there to do this.
>> Yeah. And I mean we're not we're not alone in in our in our infrastructural needs. Um you know especially on the street side to it. You're you're seeing many cities are facing the same um piece to it. I think you know an area that we
probably were just you know I guess blindly not looking at was our facilities and you know we have you know our three major facilities where we really never put any money aside to ever take care of them. and and unfortunately
they're all, you know, either at 20 or close to 20 or past 20 years. And that's usually where you see failure in your HBAC system. And and tonight there's an item on city council um which came out of that W report for the HVAC in this
facility. Um you know, and that's you know, I think to the tune of just under $600,000. So these aren't cheap repairs. And then outside of HVAC, it's your roofs that are going to be generating a lot of money um needs for it. So, the plans
that have been shown are are trying to make sure that we can accumulate enough money to be able to take care of this stuff and try to move ourselves to more cash basis versus a debt basis on everything. Um because again, you've heard me say kind of a rule of thumb
that if I were to look at something and I just use, you know, if I were to borrow a million dollars for 20 years at a 5% I'm going to be paying $80,000 in debt service every year. Well, after 20 years times 80,000 is $1.6 million. I've lost $600,000
worth of worth of purchasing power. I showed um you the comparison of a city that I've heard referenced on a number of occasions um in comparisons, you know, to the services that they provide. Um and that city is the city of Mountains. And I showed you how little
debt they have in comparison to the amount of debt that we have. Um and we're carrying that debt not just on the general levy side to it or the city component to it, but we're also carrying it in our utilities. What has that done for us over time? Well, that's what kind
of has positioned us into, you know, something not to be bragging about, second highest tax rate in Ramsey County. Um, it positioned us into that we have very high utility rates. Um, those aren't great positions to be into.
Um but um the good thing is um with the leadership of our our um city manager and the leadership of our city council, we've developed these CIP plans and we're trying to work our way out of it. Um unfortunately,
it's going to it's going to be a burden um unfortunately for our residents here. Um and you know because our only way of getting the money, you know, um is property taxes and that's where the levy piece comes into it. So this this slide just shows you kind
of where the debt and again um you're seeing the the increase is is really due to the the bond issuance that we issued earlier this year, the 2025A bond um which we had nothing in 2025 and now in 26 it's $185,000
um that we need to levy so we can pay our our debt uh principal and interest payments. This slide's new um new information. This is where um you know of the information in the cities that responded to where they're kind of looking at for
a uh tax levy increase in Ramsey County. And you can see right now uh North St. Paul is, you know, the lowest at a 5.84. Um and it goes all the way up to Ardan Hills that was looking at um nearly a 17% increase. So if we look at the
median, the median is at about a 9.1%. the average is a 9.43% um increase. Um St. Paul, I you know when this went to publication, I did not see normally they already um uh I think
actually by their their code that they have to the mayor has to present their budget but because of the cyber um attack um they've had to delay that part to it and I could not find anything on Falcon Heights and they did not respond to the surveys that were sent out.
So if we were to look at that total levy of that 5.8 84%. If we had if there was no value change in and the and the market value that I'm using is last year's um residential home of a median value of $33,300.
And if we were to look at that, we would actually see pretty much a no change in a property tax um even at this 5.84%. If we factor in what the county assessor's office um is saying about our
property values that a median value of home is increased 2.41% and we put that in there with the 5.84. It shows that the total tax um for the city HA and EDA would increase just
under $38 for a resident that meets that hits this criteria, which is about a 2.7% increase. Again, part of, you know, when you see a 5.84 84 and it translates into a, you
know, a 2.7. Part of it is that we did increase our dollars on fiscal disparities. Um, about 120 $130,000. In other words, when we levy a dollar amount, that's what we we need to to
balance our our books to keep our operation going. Taxpayers aren't paying for that full amount. Not our taxpayers. there's a fiscal disparities pool and we're considered a winner on that because we haven't had as much uh commercial growth since it was
established I believe in 1971 in comparison to the rest of the metro area. So there's that double-edged sword. The commercial not having a lot of commercial growth here helps us as far as a fiscal disparities pool is concerned and we're getting dollars yet
it hurts our tax base and our tax burden tr truly is 90 plus% on our residents and that's the that's the difficult balance that we need to be looking at. Um again slides on the the general um
budget you can see from a revenue standpoint that you know 57% is property taxes that's that ad valerium taxes um followed by a little over 21% intergovernmental um and that's you know police aid fire aid um and the biggest
one local government aid. So we have a sizable dependency on other revenue sources to the tune of you know 78%. Um that's a pretty big size dependency. So moving into the future if we saw reductions in our local
government aid which there was in this past legislation discussion on both the house and the senate into making some of those adjustments that would be a good place for them to be able to reduce local government aid. we would be directly impacted by that.
Um expenditures um you can see our personnel and our general fund uh makes up 69% um of our budget again um it and then the contractual services um followed by contractual services at 25%. So you can
see you know it's really the personnel component um that is driving our our our general fund budget. Um and and then these are the the numbers that um you know that back up the graphs. Um if we look at expenditures by
department, again, nothing new. We're seeing the same thing. We're seeing um you know, police at 47%. Um fire just under 16. You know, you add those two up, you know, then we're talking 63% of our budget is for public
safety. Um so again uh maybe a little high on the 63% in comparison to other other cities and definitely of cities that are our size they're you know usually um you know maybe 57% so we're a
little bit on the higher side there from a a comparability component to it. Um, one of the reasons that we are a little bit higher in percentage-wise is because a lot of cities that are close to our size have a recreation department. We
really don't have a recreation department. Um, you know, we have a rec recreation department as far as some expenditures are concerned. Um, which our public works is is really taking care of those types of expenditures, but we really don't have a dedicated staff
for recreation. Is there still a budget for that position? >> Not for positions. No. >> Yeah. So, if we were to ever move towards that, I know there was once upon a time if we were to move towards that, that would be a levy increase. Um, you
know, and you're again where you're sitting right now today. If you continuously, and I'm just going to round it looking at infrastructure is going to be about a 6% base for you. Then you need to add on and you saw we're
we're 69% personnel. So what what's going to come in personnel into the future? Well, when we move into the 2027 budget, we'll be on the third year of a three-year contract. So we know cost of living adjustment will be 3%. There'll
be step increases, you know, per the contracts. We're going to see health insurance, dental. I mean, we're seeing um you know, and I know um council member Schwar knows this very very well and and it's been published out there. I
mean, they're again double-digit increases. Um you know, uh 10 12% increases. We're still waiting to find out what our impact is going to be, but it should not impact our budget. um it'll impact our composition but not our
levy. And the reason for that, if you remember a couple of years ago, we transferred we didn't after after we went out for a competitive solicitation, we got a we and we moved from PEEP to um our current um insurance provider, we had a decent size reduction. City
council um made that decision, very wise decision to transfer that into the insurance fund. Um, so there was $124,000 that was transferred. So that's our buffer in case insuranceances go above what we have included in our budget. We
can cover it without changing anything in our levy for for this upcoming year. Doesn't mean we won't have to make an adjustment depending on the increase that's there moving into 2027. Again, that arrives at 2027 that you're really going to be struggling to be somewhere
between that 9 to 10% levy increase. Um so just and there's a reason why I keep emphasizing that because we have some slides as an as an option for city council to consider and again it's city council's um you know uh discussion and decision.
Um again uh HR and EDA u we're proposing to to keep the same. Um HA's fund balance is is you know pretty good for the activities that are being done there. um primarily the student build um housing program, EDA, same type of
thing. Um that uh the fund balance is pretty good. Um there's really not a a need to increase those those levies at this point in time. So the recommendation is to keep them um the same. Um and this is kind of where we
were kind of left at. Um so combined we're at a 5.84% 84% levy increase that CIP that we've looked at on on a few occasions to fund the parks that's in currently in
the CIP. We would have to add $30,000 to the levy to make that happen. That would be a point just under point4% uh increase. Um we have nothing in our budget right now for the community center. Um, and I know that there's
still discussion. There's an item after this that we'll kind of start talking a little bit about the community center um, in the future of the community center. Um, city council's already taken some action at the the last meeting. Um, but right now you there's a need to keep
what we've been doing this year at the community center. You would have to um do an increase of $85,000. And then if there was a decision not to transfer that penalty of 131, you would end up adding a 1.6%.
That would bring you to an 8.9 um% um levy increase. And I have a little note that every 1% levy increase will increase the city property tax on a median value home approximately about
$17. Um so you're aware on to that. Now, I'm going to take some questions right now and then I'm going to show you kind of what um our city manager and myself have been discussing as kind of a recommendation of where we we see it and
then really going to turn it over to city council to make the decision and the direction on where you would like to see that maximum levy be set at. Uh the reason for that is at our next city council meeting, I need to get all the resolutions since it's our last meeting
that we have in September. I need to get all those resolutions for you for your approval. Um because they need to be certified to um Ramsey County by the end of the month. Um again, it's the it's the max. We can always go down and and
you know, we've got October um November um you know, to have discussions on whatever you want to on as far as the budget's concerned um before we do the final approval in December. >> Okay. If we're at 5.6 Six. What it is? 5
>> 58. >> 58. >> If we were to go to under eight, that would cut the amount that we would need for the next couple years upon past that cuz you're going to cut the amount
because if you go at 5 point or 6% basically now, you're going to go up. You're going to have a bigger jump next year. So, if we split that in half and went underneath eight or just right at or just below eight,
it's not going to affect much of the property tax for this year. And then we're not going to be raising as much next year because the the amount that's a jump
would be a lot more greater. Am I right? Um, yeah, that's correct. At at the end of the day, taxpayers still have to pay. >> Well, no, I understand that. >> Both ears, but yes. Um, you and that that'll be the concept that's going to
be being show shown. You're a way ahead. Uh, but no, you're you're you're absolutely right on. >> So, why have a big jump when we can have a half a jump? >> That would be where it is. I mean, we're still going to have jumps. Um, you know, 8% isn't a small levy increase. No. Um
it to whatever reasons it is, you know, you can see where the average is and the median of cities in Ramsey County. Everybody seems to be kind of in the same place. Um but uh it's kind of like we know what we know right now and where
we're at. Um and all indication is we're going to be at that 9 to 10 next year. Um so if there's an opportunity for us to increase and and that is going to be the next slide to increase that upwards to in the slide it'll show 8%. If we
were to in increase it to 8% my recommendation would be and in and the city manager's recommendation would be that that is our target in 2027 that we we do everything under our powers to to meet 8% or lower and not to
exceed that amount. Um so yes, you're correct in everything that you said. I mean, it's not a culture shock for everybody. I'm in the same boat. I pay everybody, you know, we pay all the we're all living in town that if we keep
it at a minimum each year we have to do it. Eventually, we're going to have some more tax base when this tiff starts in 28 and 29 from all the first of the pen place projects. And there's going to be
a uh a nice chunk of money coming in from that tiff money that's been holding on for quite a while. >> Yeah. So, so from a property tax standpoint, I'll give you just a a little little lesson. It doesn't bring in any more money. Money comes from what
you ask for from a levy piece. What it does do is that it increases your tax base which then lowers down holding all things constant. It lowers down your tax rate which then lowers that burden on on property >> res and then that one will be coming and
then there's some others eventually down the road. But >> absolutely >> that's that's what I'm looking at is for the residents that hold on because it's going to get better. We just got to we these buildings that were built 20 years ago are just start starting to
come in and take hold now. >> Yep. Yep. Absolutely. So, there's pain to get there. Eventually, when we get there, we should be in a better financial position as far as taking care of our infrastructure on a
on a ongoing cash basis and making sure that we are taking care of our infrastructure. That's what our plan that that you've you've uh supported and approved. And then in addition to that, we'll start to see some of those tiff districts go away, which then will
increase that tax base. It'll be, hate to say it, pain to get there. Um but I think um in all of our discussions um that is kind of the direction that you've you've really kind of thrown to us and and um I got to give you a lot of
credit uh for taking that stance. Um because you could have gone the whole opposite way and say you know what 0% levy increases I don't know what you're going to do but that's what you're going to do and I wouldn't know how we would ever achieve that. So I a lot of credit to you making those tough tough tough
decisions. Yeah, I've seen my taxes go up. What do you do? You know, you got you got to make it fair for everybody without killing everybody. And if we do a smaller jump, it won't be so bad. And it dep you'll be
able to figure out what the property basic values would be if we went up to 78 76 79 somewhere in that ballpark. And then we would hold it. If we could hold it below eight, then we can the
next year it'll be won't be such a severe steep jump if we have to go ahead again. I Nope. I agree. I'm going to show you this. You know, where we're at today. Um, if you remember, you know, the the
tax impact on that medium value home with a with a median value increase is $38. Now, I'm gonna jump to kind of what you're talking about as far as a um a recommendation
um because that is in the the slide here. Um it would be a a $74 um increase versus that you know what did I say 38. So it would
be an increase you know of approximately >> what rate eight or 79 >> at eight >> eight >> at eight. So here's here's where since we've already gotten into that discussion this is kind of in looking at the items this is kind of where you know
again it's totally up to you um city council's um decision but the top line will show you where we're at today at a 5.8 5.84% 84% increase. Um it's city managers and and my recommendation if we are going to make any movement um
towards more of a average of where the Ramsey County um cities are at that we would add that $30,000 to the levy for parks. Um that 84 $85,000 for community center. Um we retired a debt. Um there's
still some funds in the debt that um would require city council's approval to transfer, but I would transfer the money over instead of changing a levy um at this point in time. Um so uh the the debt that we paid off for um the public
works facility um there's extra money in that in that in that debt fund. Um, part of the reason it accumulates more than that is because we're required to to levy 105% taken into consideration that you may have some sort of delinquent
taxes and then it it ends up getting interest and so forth. And so over 20 years it sometimes can can get to a decent size. Um, and so we do have money in there that we would be able to transfer. So we would not have to levy that.
>> What kind of funds is that? Like how much? Like dollar amount? >> Yeah, a little. Uh well, $512,000. >> Okay. >> So, >> could that go towards the >> the building fund then for the building? >> For the buildings.
>> Absolutely. Could Yep. City council can make uh whatever decision decisions that you want to make in moving into the future. Yep. Absolutely. >> Be nice to be able to put a chunk towards that. >> You bet. >> Instead of taking it down in taxes later on. >> Yep. Nope. We certainly certainly can
can move it towards that and then that'll adjust the 10-year plan and maybe we'll be able to lose uh well we will be able to I just don't know the magnitude we'll be able to reduce the levy that's needed for facilities. Um if if there's consensus on onto that we certainly can I can drop an item for
city council's action. Um the 85,000 84765 would be included in the budget process. Uh, >> can we get that? What's up on the board up here? >> Yeah, we we got the people here. >> We We get to see you on the screen as well, but
>> Oh, I don't want to see me. >> I like see you like this. I like that. >> Yeah, >> it was there for a while. It just disappeared. >> Goes in and out. >> There we go. >> There we go. >> There we go. Thanks.
So, if you were to put some of this towards the fund that they've got that was it one or $2 million that is still at this community center uh
balance or whatever comm community center >> public works >> public okay >> it's about 512 right >> so I I don't know exactly what you're talking about. >> Yes. I'm not sure. Comm >> Community Center has a little money
that's left into it. We would need $85,000 to have the same budget that we have basically today to cover operational costs to it. It does not have a It doesn't have a negative fund balance on to it. The negative fund balances in our
fiber optics. Okay. >> Um fund. Yeah. Uh fund which is close to $2 million. >> That's where I'm talking. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's where I think where you're Yeah. which Yeah. Someday um you know that that that'll end up
having to be addressed and hopefully well definitely it won't be a 2 million at that point in time. But yeah, you probably will you're already seeing some uh for next year reductions in some revenues. You're losing the library um component. You're seeing some other
expenses increase. Um yeah, you're not going to be buying it down to where you thought you were going to be at. So, at some point in time in the future, you're probably going to have to come up with probably $1.2 million to cover the negativity in that. >> That just goes back to electric fund
because that's where it came from, right? >> Um yeah. Uh no, the fiber optics actually is split between I think, don't correct me, it's either uh water and wastewater. >> Okay. Um the there's a couple of TIFF
districts that we have TIFF loans um from the electric um that's being repaid. Um that's where and and that one's like 4.6 million um that's on a lo you know in you know loan on that one. >> That's where it's at now. Genie put it there, but it did come from electric
that paid for it originally. >> Sure. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> The $30,000 for uh for the parks. What is it? just says 34 parks. >> You know, the other things say, you know, for this for, you know, specific. >> So,
>> what is the >> So, what is included and we've looked at a few times on the CIP plan for the parks to fund that plan all the way out, you would need the levy that's already included plus an additional $30,000 to
be able to fund that. In addition to that, there is going to have to be some discussion in the future years because the cash flow doesn't work. Um, so it's either means some projects are going to be pushed out um, you know, or there's going to have to be an internal um, loan
from another fund to be able to fund those projects at that level. And those are for future discussions within the the city. But no different than the streets, no different than the facilities, you have the parks, this is what they need to be able to to do that. and and the parks commission did a very
nice job in com compiling their CIP requests this past year and and so that's the result of what that um would be. >> Okay. Um and then um I would I would continue to to tr um to transfer the
penalty from electric um you know penalty is not um considered a component that you look at when you do a rate study um and that you you know it's not something that you you incorporate into
that. Um if you go back to COVID um penalties were removed um and there was no penalties for um a few years. Um so this is kind of where we're we're at with that. Um it also is for those who are paying on a timely manner um their
utility bills. um this penalty, you know, is is actually helping um you know, the the city um being able to provide um our basic services um which are included in our general fund and again primarily our our um public
services. So, I would keep that. Um, and then to get it up to that 8%, um, I would add anotherund u, again, I'm saying I I'm speaking for both our city manager and myself because it's, um, our conversations and and the plan that we
work together. Um, increase it 142, but it would be dedicated for infrastructure. So it'd either be, you know, we'd budget it either to go to the streets so then we can lower that need down and again I don't know the exact amount that it would be um in, you know,
for the next year. Uh so we can keep that 2027 levy increase instead of a double digit or close to a double digit, we can have it at instead it at that 8%. So that's kind of my recommendation on to that. The other point since we we
have a council member who who who uh is uh knows a little bit about that fiscal disparities component to it that you know if we hold everything else constant this raises our right now at 5.84% our rate stays pretty much the same.
This will raise our rate up a little bit which holding everything else constant. In other words growth everything in the metro area which is a long shot to it. um we could end up seeing in 2027 another little increase in fiscal disparities distribution that the city
receives. Again, that benefits our taxpayers. >> I like what we did um with the savings account for the health insurance. I'd like to see that for different pockets so it doesn't get sucked into the general fund. If we can earmark like that, I think taxpayers have a little
easier time when they see, okay, this money is now for buildings. This money's for that and this is for that instead of, you know, now we comes in handy with 124,000 for the for the health. We, you know, we're not because we would have thrown it back in the general would have been gone and we would have been bumping it up again. >> Absolutely.
>> If we can try to put things into spots and accounts where we know they are, I think it helps everybody understand what the actual costs are for this. And that's where I, you know, your suggestion is fantastic. That $512,000, you know, 85 of it will go here to
cover, you know, the community center for next year. The remainder will move into um facilities. Um this 142, if city council is is, you know, willing to to move it to an 8% levy increase, would be
moved into, we'll say, streets or or parks. It um to me, it's it's totally up to you, but I'd like to have it dedicated. So it's not in the general fund just like you're you're saying. Fantastic idea. >> And that would be set aside for future expenses, not necessarily for 2026
expenses. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Correct. >> That'll help us pad the next year out because we know we're going to have to raise it so much and if we get that fund a little bit raised then it may be less next year. >> Correct. >> Okay.
Personally, I >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Uh, personally, I have some concerns about the full transfer of the electric penalty. Um, we transferred 1.5 million to the streets
because we were told that, you know, the electric fund was good. um with the transfer of the penalties. One of the things Dan said earlier is we have some of the highest rates around. In some of the slides he presented
earlier and at the previous council, he talked about a rate increase on electric in 2027. I can't in good conscious move money from the electric to the general and then tell our residents that I need to increase the rate.
Um, so I would say at the most I'd be comfortable with splitting the difference and only transferring half the penalty, but I I I can't I can't look the residents in the eye and say I need to increase the rates on our electric after we transferred all this
money out. >> Great question. How about on general, how much does electric fund give every year as far as like 800 some is it we transfer normally? What is it 400? I can't remember. 300,000. >> 300,000. Okay.
>> There's franchise fee piece to it. I mean, there's a lot of different tales that um are a component of the electric fund. You know, the franchise fees being split between I think building your building maintenance fund and I can't remember off the top of my head what the
other fund is. So, it's not going into um the electric fund component to it. >> Enterprise fund. is under >> the electric fund is an enterprise enterprise fund. Y >> and the description of enterprise fund
is as far as bringing city more in revenue or what is that considered when it comes to inter enterprise fund is that for that or is it just a different way to because it's being sold to the >> definition of an enterprise fund would be um
uh that you're charging rates for the cost and goods services to an external party. In other words, residents versus an internal service fund, which is two internal departments. >> Yep. >> So, would Councilman Norby prefer to
drop the rate back down to just above seven, six or seven? No, I I'm okay with the 8%, but to to me, we split the difference and only transfer out half the penalty to ensure that we can keep the electric rates the same and then only fund half of the 142
that he was talking um and and find a small way to tighten our belt maybe next year to not have to do the 10. But I I think that's a fair compromise. >> I agree with you, Jason. So, what he's suggesting is that that
we'd add back approximately $65,000 of the penalty that would be levied. Then it would reduce that $142,000 down below by $65,000 to still get to that 8% levy. >> And again, if there's consensus on that,
that's, you know, that'll be the direction that'll put together the paperwork. Um, >> and that 65,000 will go to we can you're marked like roads or something like that. >> Yeah. the the my thought was the same thing he was talking about. You're marking the 142 for >> Yep. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah, that that
concept still stays the same. It's just the dollar amount changes because there's a different composition. But great great conversation. >> T agree.
>> So, what I'm hearing is uh we'll increase $30,000 for the levy of the parks. We'll do the transfer of the $85,000 for the community center. The remainder going into um an infrastructure account. Um we'll
um add back approximately $65,000 in um levy and then we'll increase um approximately $78,000 in levy that'll go to the infrastructure
resulting in a levy increase for a maximum levy of 8%. All in all in favor of that and then I'll I'll be bringing that up at the next city council meeting with uh resolutions to support that. Good. >> Yep. Everybody
>> I I agree with that. >> Okay. >> Jason, you good? >> Yep. I'm good. Council member Schwar. >> Yeah, you may move forward with that. >> Okay. >> Yep. You good? >> All right. >> That's us. Y >> So that is the information I needed. Um
>> thanks again for all the hard work. Oh, no. Thank you. You make this an exciting job. So, this is fun. So, I thank you all. >> Thanks. >> All right. Next item. >> Next item on the uh topics for the
workshop is uh discussions for the community center and grant funds. So just a little bit of the background on it and information that we've gathered up till now um for different options that we've just compiled so far is the first option is
to reallocate of uh options of reallocating the grant funds um and options for the Ramsey County Library and options for the community center um and the site itself. Um, I know you put together this great slide
here, Dan. I'm going to take it here for just a second. Um, so the community center and grant funds, um, on the last, uh, council meeting on August 19th, um, council approved the following. The contract with the EAPC architect and engineering for the community
multicultural outreach center feasibility study was to be terminated. Um pursuant to the contract, city will decline both federal and state grants, funds, and award for the current project, uh city manager authorized to
and directed to take all necessary steps to carry out the termination of the contract and the cancellation of grant funds, including notification to all relevant agencies and to explore the reallocation of the grant funds. Um and this resolution was to take effect upon adoption. Um so tonight the discussions
will be um to for discussion is options for the reallocation of the grant funds. So ideas that you may have for that. So that could either go for um um a water tower, it could go for a road reconstruction project or it could go
for a park project. Um and Dan put together good options and numbers for that. Um, and also options for the Ramsey County Library. Um, what to do with it, where we could move it, um, or
other options that we might have. Um, and then also options for the community center site itself. Um, with that, I'll turn that over to you, Dan, for the community center and grant funds discussion with the numbers you put together, please.
So, we'll take um each one of these um topics that um Brian has just um talked about um and then and then, you know, we'll kind of try to get to a consensus of what direction um city council wants
to go to uh or go for um so staff can start to work on those um the option um piece to it. So if we don't have a lot of lively conversation, I do have post-edited notes and pens that will make you all kind of write them down so
then we can think. But this is really kind of the brainstorming component to it and making sure that we end up having very good healthy dialogues. So the the reallocation of the grant funds um you know when we're looking at that you know the state component of that $4.5
million. So, here's just a couple of um items. Two, the number one and number two are are, you know, in included in our CIP. Three, there's some pieces of the Mcnite complex that's in our CIP, but not totally. Um, and so the numbers
that I'm pulling from came from that HGA report. So the real question is, are there other things that city council has been thinking of that maybe you would want to have the grant funds or at least trying to get it reallocated to?
>> So I just want to confirm we've turned down the funds and we're going to need to go back and request the funds for reallocation. Correct. >> Okay. [Music] Just to be clear, they haven't been
turned down yet. We're working through all these options here of what direction we're going to go. >> Okay. Because your first slide indicated that we have turned them down. So, I just want to clarify that that >> was the direction that was given, but we're not there. >> We have not said no to those funds yet.
>> That is correct. Um, I appreciate that you guys have put this together. Um, I was a huge proponent of the community center and I'm going to continue to be a huge proponent of that comm community center even though it is dead. Um the funds that were granted to us and that were
advocated for were funds for our community. And um I personally would like to see those funds get allocated to um something similar to the community
center and what I feel is most similar would be the Mcnite complex. I believe that um it could be brought into I see a mix of not only arts and culture in this but I also see a mixture of parks and recreation in this. This also brings the
community together especially with the plan that parks and recreation came together with. Um so in my opinion I would say the Mcnite complex first and the new uh tower park water tower second. Roads are always going to be there. It's
going to be a consistent ongoing process with roads. Financially, we need to be sure that we set our city up for success when it comes to budgeting for these things. Um, that is my opinion.
>> Okay. I guess I kind of agree with Cassidy, but our city doesn't have the funds to completely cover the whole Mcnitefield project at
one time. Now, she's missing one point. When we do this water tower, it's going to get redone on the in the same park. One thing that the parks commission is missing is they're going to have to
redesign a playground setup for that park. They can add to and from that area once the old water tower comes down because that's going to need a whole new revamping once they do the
grading work in there. I think I think before we do the Mcnite Fields, they should they might want to reconsider doing the Tower Park playground and adding to you can add some pickle ball
courts there to make it more versatile once they do the water tower and that's going to be coming up in what just a couple years. so they could get their funds set up for that. And in the
meantime, we can save money to keep working for getting the Mcnitefield complex up and operating. And I'm in favor of the Mcnitefield project. I think we're not ready and we're not quite to that point yet, but I'd like to see the parks
come up with a program for Water Tower Park because they've got a very young kids uh playground in there now. They could they could increase it by quite a bit to draw more kids in there once the tower park is done or the tower is done.
>> Thank you. [Music] >> All right. Um I agree with Cassidy with um council member Schwar on the fact that the grant
that we were approved for was very much based on community involvement. Um and that's what you know the uh community center was kind of about was community involvement. And so I like the idea of the Mcnite complex,
the Tower Park playground. Maybe not so much uh in my mind I guess. Um one other option is there anything we can do around Silver Lake? Um you know maybe the park there or you know walking paths
or anything around Silver Silver Lake um is just something that came to mind. So >> thank you. Um, I I I want to thank former council members um Tim Cole and uh Lisa Wong for getting us this grant in the first
place. Um, and I guess my feeling is I'd like to keep the spirit of the grant intact. This money was for all intents and purposes to redo the community center. Um, I still believe that the proposal that I
put before this council and that workshop is a viable um, proposal for the community center site that we turn it into a one-story building, slab on grade, a very simple,
efficient building. My thought to accomplish that, the water tower is fully funded with the 6% increase that Dan planned. My thought is we repurpose the grant for the water
tower with the caveat that we do a RFP or a proposal to find out what a basic efficient building that we could put in the place of the community center because we need to do something with the community center anyway and transfer if we agree with
that plan transfer the mount out of the the um water fund to cover that building you know So the the the offshoot numbers were 1.5 to 2 million. >> So if if if we repurpose the grant to
the water tower with the caveat that we're going to transfer out the money to cover what we decide for the community center. To me, that would still keep the spirit of the grant alive. It would be wise expenditure of the money. It would take care of the building that we still
need to take care of. um and and would also help the taxes by the remainder of it going towards the the water tower fund. So so so that's my thought process
that makes sense. I mean this year the because really if you look at you know this kind of covers parts one and three of the discussion tonight you know the what are we going to do with the grant and what are we going to do with the site. Um, part one
would be, you know, if we take this, if we are able to get this grant and use it towards the water tower, fund the water tower with it and then set aside the rest of that money because then that money we could use for demolition of the
existing community center, regrade or whatever we need to do with the facilities there because we're going to have to move some of the um uh >> power equipment, the generator the uh fiber equipment and everything that's
there somewhere which is probably going to go in Ron's building. Well, not Ron's building but public works. Um so uh then you know it's going to cover that as well as whatever we decide to
put there which I think uh council member Norb's idea of that facility something that we can use which would be available to the city uh members city the community members uh you know for
use like uh flea markets farmers markets you know whatever Um, whereas, you know, I see a lot of use of Casey Lake, I see a lot of use of housing and things like that, but it is a very furnished building. Having a an unfernished
building that is kind of a blank slate where you can set boos up or tables up or wherever, however you want, I think is a a good idea. So, anyway, >> and for my part, I like the water tower is just about the same same price as the
grant. So we can take that and then we have this money to to be able to use in the future. But it takes you know this issue that you know water tower for generations people I mean water towers how many years water towers up 50 60 years probably at least around there you know every once in a while they get new guts or maybe some update but that's
something that's been a need to the northern part of the the people that live in north St. fall with the water, you know, issues with with pressure and things where it's able kind of like a locked same same price as what it would be for the for the grant is the price of
the of the water tower. It just opens up some funds for us like some of the ideas, but you know, just understanding where it would be the best, but that would just take that off the table. >> Yeah. And I think the one thing that this alleviates is that caveat to the to
the grant that it must be used for a single project. >> So, you know, then if we don't wind up spending all the money for the, you know, whatever we wind up doing with the community center site, some of that f some of those funds could go towards,
you know, the Mcnite project or things like that as well. So, >> correct. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the demo of the building and the relocation of the library was roughly a cost of three million. Correct. This was a while back
when we talked about this. >> That's if we would have built some >> my proposal or that that I put before you or which proposal I'm >> I want this is prior to new council members. This was a after we discussed the funds. I think that's why we were deciding maybe building something on
Margaret that would be building a new building for the library. >> We were thinking of a different spot if they took it down. So that wasn't >> I don't remember that piece but >> yeah based on the propo was it EAP or whoever >> EAPC
>> EPC uh their proposal I think talked about the demolition of the building um being like quarter of a million $250,000 I think something like that. Um, and then we still have the >> reloc
>> the library to deal with, but >> um, >> yeah, I I yeah, I think we do have some place where they'll potentially have places where the library could go. So, >> and we we as a city are responsible for their location and where they go and
paying for that location for till 2030. >> 2030 is the end of their contract currently. Correct. Okay. [Music] a general consensus with the water tower. >> What would happen if we were to sell the
water the community center? >> I would not sell the community center. This is an asset that we have in the city that would be at the biggest disadvantage if we sold that area. And that is one option that you guys would have to decide on. Yes,
>> I know we have some issues with that area with parking and outdoor space. It'd be nice if we could have a little bit more space on whatever we do. I always think of like up in Casey where there's the room there, but unfortunately it's a little farther away from downtown. >> So that makes it a little bit harder
too. >> Yeah. Is there anybody interested in the community center to purchase >> in looking at it right now? We have potentially one. Um, waiting for more information back. >> Do you want to jump to your next slide?
I think that was for There we go. That was the library. [Music] Um, one question I have for Ron, but I I I believe we should all be aware of
this. Ron, you want to come up? >> To put him on the spot. >> Yes. Um, I I I did talk to Ron just for a second because I know one of the questions he's been asking us for a long time is somewhere to put snow. A and you believe that the community center site, if we
demolish it, would not be a good site for that. Correct. >> No, it would not. There's just not enough space there for that. >> For what? >> Snow uh snow removal in the city has and where to put it as properties go um has been a concern of his and he's been bringing it forward. So, I just wanted
to get everyone on the same page that that was not a potential solution for some of his ass. >> No, no, that wouldn't be that wouldn't work. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> The witness may sit down. Okay.
anything else? >> Okay. >> So, this next slide here, you know, what are some of the options for the Ramsey County Library? And you have to remember the these are not all inclusive. This was just spitballing, you know, and throwing out different ideas. Um, so
feel free to add, subtract, whatever you think. It was just, you know, there's always that option that you could find a buyer for the community center that would keep the library. You can demo the community center except for a library space. That was the one that I remember being at about 2.5 million for the demo
piece to it. um because they yeah structurally they'd have to go through it and then there's HVAC configurations and that stuff that would be so costly >> and it was it was higher than that even >> yeah and it could have been it was out there before and then EAPC I think um
confirmed um that it would be a a high cost to uh work with the Ramsey County to relocate the library um and then no library in the city >> I guess just looking at those options I don't see option two being a viable
option. Um I would prefer not option four. I think there's, you know, just in speaking to members of the community, I think there's a lot of value that comes with having a small library, you know, having a library in the city. Um it's
something quaint, so to speak, uh that people appreciate. Um so I think trying to avoid option four as well. Um, I guess if we do pursue, you know, finding somebody to buy the community center
again, which would be probably, you know, two on my options if I were to rank these. Um, that, you know, we put that caveat in there that if they were to purchase that building and use it that the library has to remain in there.
Um, we would have to make that part of the contract or whatever. Um, so I guess my preference would be to work with the Ramsey County, relocate the library to some place available. >> I actually went down and um spoke at to the librarian after our after our vote.
Want to make sure that uh she she said she watched it online, so she was able to uh um she's up to date on what was going on. She understood the expense of what how much it was cost to the building compared to that. So, she was understanding on that part of it as far as the money and the difference of what
it would be between that and the grant. And we just trying to get a meeting together as far as uh with the library to see what their um what their plans are for the library with some of these budget things that are coming up and uh I don't think it can get on the list for
a while. I think is the end of September, but the first time they can can meet with the city if I'm not mistaken. >> Unfortunately, yes. Yep. >> If we were to sell a building, that purchaser would have then to repair
the building himself, right? >> Has and has he ever tal whoever it is, have they talked about keeping the library upon the purchase? >> Have you you've had that discussion with this person then? So, you've already
discussed further >> as of uh last Thursday. Yes. Reached out and they got they got back to me today. >> You reached out to them? >> I did. >> But we hadn't had any conversation about a sale of it. So, why would we reach out to somebody about selling the community
center? >> It's bringing you guys options that you guys can decide on. >> Now, if we were to sell it, he would purchase it. He would own the property. He would be paying our prop our
commercial tax back to our city and he would be buying our electric from our electric department. Correct. >> Correct. I guess I to me we're throwing out options there. Um
I wouldn't I would possibly also think about directing staff to talk to the historical society. Um, they had, I believe, previously
mentioned something about the possibility of them not wanting their current location anymore. Um, would this be a good time to create on the site? It currently is a joint historical side society library and what the finances of
that would look like. Um, personally, I I want to find a way to keep the library in the city. I I I don't have >> want to lose it either, >> right? Um, I have concerns about selling the site. Um,
I I I can't see the financial success of someone buying it and saying they're going to keep the library. Um, we can't make it work as a city. I have a hard time seeing a private enterprise doing that.
>> I agree with you, Jason. But but uh there again talking to the historical side to see if long-term converting it into a combination building there could work out. I wouldn't mind staff reaching out to see if they have interest in us exploring
that further. When I reached out to Sue to talk about it originally when the grant first came out, they were debating about that because then they could have it open up more hours, but as far as the how much it cost to keep the building fixed up, it didn't help us at all. So,
it doesn't really get us anywhere for the money. Well, the reason I think it could get us somewhere is basically what I was thinking was a complete demolish of the current building and and just a a build of a lot smaller, more efficient building. And and there again, I don't
know if that's financially viable or smart. Um, but it might be worth a conversation. >> Yeah. I mean, if we're just kind of throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks, it's I mean, it's an option. So,
very, very good dialogue. >> We're going to jump on to this other option here of option uh or options to look at the community center and site potential. Again, they're not in any order. They're just randomly just thrown out there. Sell the community center as
is. Sell the community uh center without library generator and fiber. Um demo the facility. Relocate generator. Relocate the fiber. Repurpose the site. >> Has there ever been a
dollar value on the the amount that it would be sold for? I don't believe there's anything recent. Um I think there was appraisals back >> I I believe >> four years ago. >> Shift keys and sons years and years ago put in an offer.
>> They were to make a garage out of it. >> Yeah. But and that was >> there were also appraisals that came in but that that didn't compare to what the offers that came in. Um, I think the largest offer we had back at the time was uh I think a million
dollars. >> That's when it was still functionable and a decent roof. >> No, I think the roof was already identified as needing repair. >> Yep. >> And some of the other I mean because it's based upon useful life. So,
I I don't believe that we've had any offers on the building that the people that offered intended to keep it as is. It was pretty much all demo of the building. >> No, no, >> at all.
>> No. >> Coco was one offer. They were going to keep building and >> Oh, Coco. Okay. It was just shifts that was going to make it a garage. >> Yeah. We're going to Yeah. Keep the same building. They're just going to put big doors on the side to put the crap in. >> Mhm. >> Well, if it's at what, Coco? I I you
know, I don't I wasn't here around when they were around here, but wasn't if they were in there once, that building on the lower level is all set up to what they had in there originally. Correct. As far as offices and how they were
operating it, >> well, they had a different setup than what they could have in the future. I mean, they had a chiropractor in there. sub lease. They have a sub lease of a um you know physical therapy, other things available in there. I don't know if they would set it up the same way, but the gym was the big part that they were
>> and they just built uh Dave if I'm not they just built a big site. >> I saw it. Yep. >> But you got to remember one the volleyball in boys sports is becoming bigger and bigger. I bet that's why he wants to get into
this cuz the guys's volleyball is starting to take off pretty pretty heavy. >> So option number three, the demo of the facility. Um the estimate that we had from EPC, is that right? EPC EP
>> EAP EAP. Um sorry. Um the estimate that we had from them was $250,000. Does that include relocating the generator and the fiber? No. Okay. So, we still be on the hope for that. Okay. >> We have three minutes.
>> Just keep going. >> So, I mean, obviously this there's a lot of continuation in a discussion on this which we'll end up doing, but actually a very very very good conversation. So, I'm going to summarize a couple at least key principles as we move forward that
I've heard. one that whatever reallocation of the funds, the grant funds, there needs to be a plan where it's going to have a community benefit. >> Um, >> so now there you can get there a little bit differently. You can do the water
tower, reallocate the money from the water tower, transferring it over to do something else. That's going to be a community benefit. So concept one principle, community benefit. The other across the board hurt we have to keep that library. Um so we have to keep the
library within the city. Um again >> could could be a lease space it could be current space it could be but whatever it's a principle. So whatever options we come up with we have to kind of identify those pieces. One other kind of
component that I I want to explore here with it is that the current site if you demo it, you relocate everything which really we need to get some cost for you to really show you what that is for re you know um for the generator and the
and the fiber and the and the demo. Um, but would the city council be open to giving up ownership of that site? Whether you sell it as is, sell it however, or it's demoed and you sell the site.
>> I think it would be a great opportunity for EDA to work with a developer. Then >> 100% the EDA should be involved with trying to understand that. And a big part of that too is we need to understand and it's going to be the end of September what the libraries you know what their plan is what their long-term
plan is too because right now we're assuming >> we don't know after this lease where they where they want to be >> right but from a principal standpoint from what city council is saying is that it we want we want to keep them if we can and it may not absolutely they may not be willing to do that you know
they'll be they'll be faced with a lot of budget um cuts you know moving forward in the future too. So, you know, um what they'll do with that. Can I just throw out a concept that that's out there? If you were to find a buyer to buy this this property, and no, I don't
have anybody in mind onto it. Would the city be open to selling the facility but not the land? And the land would be on a $1,20 lease. >> In other words, >> they got money. they would have money to
actually fulfill the need to repair the building. >> Well, they would own the building for 20 years. They would have to do the the the repairs to the facility to be have it operational. But at the end of 20 years, the city would own never gives up that land for some sort of future
development. And the answer is if not interested just throwing it out there as a >> if we if we can keep the land but they buy at the property or buy the building. >> Why not? >> Just just throwing it out.
>> Anybody benefits for doing that as far as somebody purchasing it? >> What happens after 20 years then? >> You can write up an agreement any which way you want. Um there can be a buyback clause that's put into it that the city owes that person at the end of 20 years
or it's nothing. Um but however you decide on doing it would then obviously impact their offer as a purchase price. But the principle was and I heard council member Schwar um you know pretty pretty loudly that that it's an asset.
Um and so and and even with it if the site was open, you know, demoed and everything, you would, you know, engage the EDA for some sort of community development. Again, pointing that there's a there's a a value to that property piece to it. So, it was just a thought, just throwing it out there. Um
but, um times run out, we've got some principles. um we'll end up having to to plan um some more discussions with some more information for for city council. >> But I thank you very much for both of the items and and fantastic dialogue. >> Thank you.
>> Appreciate it. >> All right, we'll uh call for adjournment and give us five minutes before. So move council member >> Troy Woods. Thank you. I got stuck there. Yep. Second. Council member Schwar. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Five minutes, please. 636. >> It doesn't