No. So, go to the three pins at the go to the picture at the top. City or go in the middle. >> Hover over it and click the three dots. >> And if you go down to pin >> that should >> we'll see. I guess this is
>> I double screen on the on the display. >> So, that's also go to participants. Okay. Sorry. >> I did hear the complaint today about the >> audio like somebody told me today was
>> beautiful. Thank you. >> Don't report it'll take or whatever. Okay. >> I don't care. >> Okay. Now you admit everybody in. >> Looks like Mike's joining us online. Well, Mike, you're going to somebody else gets his cookies. >> It did it again. Hit admit all of the
power. >> Thank you. >> Here's um the city of Ornoba needs to be kicked up because that's the problem. >> Why? We're the host. >> You are. That is us. Yeah. >> Is she going to make us big screen again?
>> Can't read it. I've got my glasses on. >> Yes, please. I can't see. >> I'm sorry. I can't see. >> Bear with us as we work through this. >> I love this mouse. >> We really hate this mouse. Okay, good
jumping around. >> Daniel, I might have you. Okay, go over here a second. >> No, that did not do what I wanted. We're just going to pass this down to Daniel where you're a little closer >> and you can make this big and move the participant.
>> Thank you. Make that screen. >> Just can't read those tiny words. >> Close that. Mike, can you hear us? >> Yes. >> Oh, you are quiet. >> Audio back to audio.
>> Okay. Can you hear us now? >> Mike, can you talk one more time? Just make sure we can hear you good. Yes. Can you hear me? >> I can hear you. >> That's better. >> Okay,
>> that's all we got. >> We must sit in the front row. Is this me? is recording. >> Yes. Okay. >> Good evening. It's our December 16th um city council meeting. Welcome for those that are here tonight as well as on the
Zoom. Thank you. With that, we have a roll call. >> Mayor >> here. Councelor Pentigrass >> here. Councelor Phillips >> here. Councelor Rice >> here. Councelor Spring >> here. >> And then we've got Joe Palin here. Mike
is online. Kane in the back. and Rachel. >> Next item is our agenda. >> I make a motion to approve the agenda. >> I'll second it. >> Like to remove the WSB planning and zoning.
>> Um I think we'll just table us those items if we when we get to it. >> Okay. That's a lot of trying to digest. Yes. Oh, >> right. Um, any other questions or
comments? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I >> I post approved. Next item is our public forum is the three minute time limit for the person. >> City council welcomes, encourages
participation from community members. Uh, please keep in mind that your comments will pertain to city business and must adhere to data privacy rules. No employees names may be used. Please do not expect action from the council this evening regarding your concerns. To address the city council during public
form, please step up at the podium, state your name, address, and fill out the form that's provided there. And speakers will recognized only once. You will be timed. Begin speaking when the green card is raised. Uh yellow indicates you have 30 seconds left and
the red card indicates you have reached your 3minut time limit and must stop. So with that the public forum will open at 6:36. So for those that would like to speak to the public forum and step forward. There
will be a public hearing um after this but uh any other subject um that you like to speak to you can step to podium and speak. Second call for public forum. >> Can I speak about my taxes? >> Uh, no. We'll bring that up um at the
next item on the agenda. >> Okay. >> Yeah, no problem. Thanks for asking. Is there anybody on Zoom that would like to speak public forum? Please unmute. Third and final call for public forum. >> Steven Norland, 845 Street Northwest.
Uh this is in regards to our city sewer and water project. uh back three years ago when the phase 1A was proposed, I asked to have my numerous times I asked the person
responsible for getting the agreements uh to have it uh surveyed and with no luck it happened. So the
project I forcefully or I not willingly because you had us backed in a corner sign the agreement and an individual here knows that I came in on the very last day almost the last hour.
Okay. I am preparing to sell my home. I need to have that surveyed. Uh it comes down through my driveway. that driveway makes turns four different times.
So I will in writing as the statute states ask to have every turn of direction width of the easement and so on. I will deliver that to city
hall tomorrow. Okay. And I know that there are 81 other homes here or 80 plus other homes on this phase 1A that have the grinder stations that had
to sign the same agreement as I I'd like to actually I'd like to know tonight but what your plans are doing
with it. after I have a written request to the city which I can ask at any time I you have 30 days to do something with it.
Thank you. Oh, since I still got time, I don't wish to have any city employee come onto my property after it's defined or any other project that the city chooses to do onto my property other
than down that defined easement, which it will be defined. Third and final call for none. We'll close public forum at 6:40.
The next item is our public hearings. Have three subjects. um truth and taxation public hearing proposed final budget 425 budget footprint. So we'll take you there speakers to the first one
and then we'll move to the second one. So I'll open the hearing at 6:41 and our city administrator like to share some comments first. Yep. should close that.
>> All right. So, this is our annual truth and taxation hearing hearing meeting. Um for the city of Ornokco, this will be discussing the proposed annual budget and property tax levy um as presented by
the city for 2027's or excuse me 2026 budget. Go. So purpose of this hearing, truth and taxation hearing required public hearing um on the proposed levy tax kind of explains how the city tax dollars will be used and provide opportunity for
public comment before final adoption which will occur later in tonight's meeting. Um the levy which is the amount of taxes that the city's collecting in the um budget is where basically how the city is looking to use those funds. So,
excuse me. Just kind of a brief overview here. Talk about the property tax system. So, it all starts with uh local assessors uh for Homestead County doing their assessments on properties and then kind of ends with the final tax statements at the end of the year. Um the city itself has no authority to
determine what property is taxable. That's up to the county. They make that determination as to what property will be taxed or not. Um and then again a generality most of the cities in Minnesota property taxes are the main source of revenue. Uh you'll see here
we've got variations of why do property taxes go up or down? Um specifically why they go up there's a decrease in tax base or lower values. Higher levies by the city, county, and school. Um no new construction, higher than average increase in individual property
value compared to other properties in the same jurisdiction. And then a shift in values between property classes, why they would go down. Uh increase in tax base and higher values. You have a levy that decreases or modest levy increases by the city,
county, and school. New construction which adds growth in new value to the community. You get a decrease or lower than average increase in individual property value or there's a shift in values between property classes. Again,
so where does our revenue come from? You know, our revenue comes from a variety of different places. We have charges for service, which are part of our fee schedule. Uh we have property taxes, which is a majority of our property, which you'll see in the next slide. A majority of our revenue. We get revenue from local government aid, state fire
aid, things like that. We get revenue from license, permits, fines, interests. Um, we also get revenue from grants, franchise fees, recreation fees, rent and donations, and then special assessments. Those are kind of our main
areas of where we're seeing revenue coming in for the city. This shows a breakdown of the 2026 general fund revenues by source. Uh, the big one you're going to see there in orange, that is our property taxes. That, like I said, that is the majority of our revenue for the 2026 budget, as is with
most cities. On the left here, you'll see a breakdown. This is really hard to see on this. I don't know why it's so narrow on the TV screen here. Um, you have a there's a breakdown of the expenditures that are also in the piraphph there. Um, property taxes are
just over 1.6 million. Our federal state and aid is just over 200,000. Permits and fees were right around 59,000. Reimbursements, we're looking at 35,000. Um, interest income is about 10,000. miscellaneous revenues of about 5,000
franchise fees of about 7500 and then transfers in which is from our water sewer fund is 216,000 a little bit more all that presentation >> I think so >> come out of that sometimes that helps
>> what' you say Daniel presentation >> yeah I'm just >> displaying No, that just switched my view. >> Technical difficulties. Hold on. See if that throws it back into There we go.
>> So, I think it's just something with the the plug in here for the AV. So, anyways, that brings us to our total revenues just over 2 million for the year 2026. So again, you look at the the budget, like I said, just over 2 million for the
total general fund revenue. Uh the budget reflects growth, inflation, and service demands from the city. Um being able to support residents and community growth and focusing on maintaining our core services and infrastructure and just being able to improve where we're
at. Uh this slide may look familiar. This is one that was kind of posted online. This shows, you know, where are your tax dollars used? Um, kind of gives a breakdown of, you know, where these are falling under. The administrative and
public works side is a lot of where the tax dollars are going. We're supporting it with um administrative staff, public works staff, public facility care and maintenance, planning and engineering services, working on permits, licensing, property records management, our
economic development and aid infrastructure expansion, commercial development, attraction, training and uh reducing outside contractor use as part of this municipal ordinance and code enforcement, zoning administration and
land use management. public relations and then software improvements, online portals. That's a majority of what we're seeing under the administrative and public works side of our our budget. Then we have the safety side of our budget. That's where we have our contract with the Mstead County Sheriff's Office or Fire and Emergency
Services or First Responders um as well as the emergency operations services or EOS EOC emergency operations center. um their training, their equipment, apparatus, maintenance and replacement.
And then we have streets and roads where we're looking at long-term pavement plan for all the roads here as well as being able to maintain those yearly outside of the the big plan that was put together recently by Stantech. Uh snow and sand removal, public works equipment and replacement kind of fall
under that a little bit as well. And then we get into parks and trails. We've got 50 acres of green space maintenance over eight different parks. Um, we got general parks repairs, upkeep, we have playgrounds, athletic court improvements, and we're looking to do investments, new paving areas and park
trails. Um, and really just kind of the public works machinery replacement as well. That should have been up with streets and roads. Um, but you know, focusing on building up our parks and trails a little bit because that's something that was asked for this year. So again, this just shows the breakdown
of those kind of those areas that we were talking about as a visualization. Um kind of dollar amounts and percentages. Again, you'll see administration in the uh blue, then orange is public works, and we have streets and roads in the dark green,
parks and trails in the light blue, fire and first responder in the purple there. Uh safety in the light green, and then our CIP planning, which is I think relatively new this year as we we grow into that. We'll talk a little bit
later. Um but that's 12% of our budget breakdown again. So, we had the revenues. Now, we have our expenditures. Again, the expenditures match the revenues of just over two million. This was something that was included in the preliminary. I brought it back in
here just kind of shows a breakdown of these are again with the preliminary numbers we had from September. Um, we can expect these to go down with the work that we've done over the last couple months. Uh, our section on this chart is in red. That's the city's
portion of the taxes that the citizens pay for the entire 2026 year. Again, this was the preliminary numbers at 36%. We can expect that to be in half. Um, this particular house, that number was $9662.
So, cutting that in half, you're looking at just under 500 thou $500. Um, to where we're at now at that about 18%. So that's a I think that's a pretty good cut down from there.
This kind of shows our tax rate history and gives a a breakdown of you know how we get the tax rate. Uh it's the formula that's used. Uh basically A divided by B equals C. A is our certified levy that we present. B is the the tax capacity or
market value. And we'll I've got another chart that kind of shows that a few slides down. And then C gives us our tax capacity rate or our tax rate. Right? So this year, you know, our certified levy is that $1.6 uh million divided by the tax capacity,
which this year is 3.8 million set by the county. That gives us our tax rate of 43.9%. Which is down8% from last year. And you can see that on the left here. Um last year's tax rate was 44.8. This year's
tax rate is actually down almost a whole percent to 43.9. So again, this goes into just a breakdown from the preliminary rates. This shows portions of the taxes and the levies presented to the state oro on
topstead county and the school districts that we would mainly see here uh as part of your taxes. and it just kind of shows what they're asking for and what their increases are this year um for their budgets. And then I went through and put together a comparison preliminary levy
for the surrounding cities, ones I I have most contact with in my interaction and we work pretty closely with and I think in our region um across a few different counties here. We have Mstead County, Good Hugh County, and then a few from Dodge County. Um just as a reference again their levy changes in
dollar and percentage amounts from 25 to 26. Um at the very bottom there's an average of compared cities here that shows the average about 11.2% of the levy chang this year for all those cities. Um and then the average
statewide reported to the state 8.7%. But that includes everything from your super small towns and communities to um you know like your Rochesterers. So you're going to have quite the the spread in there. Um this one I did not
include Rochester because it really just skewed the numbers. This goes back to what I was talking about a couple slides ago, our tax rate history in orange. Orange is our levy amount that we've taken every year. Um on the far right is 2022 all the way up
to on the far left 2026. In the blue you can see the the tax capacity base set by the county. And you can see the increase that we've had starting in 22. Um there was a a pretty good jump there and then it was a little bit of a jump into 24.
24 to 25 they remained pretty steady and then 25 to 26 the county took a huge leap um in the tax capacity. And so while ours I think is maintain a steady growth here.
Um like we said part of our work we do a lot of different stuff. Uh I felt it important to kind of put in our our numbers for our permits. This just kind of shows in 2022 the city um this is based off of the I works numbers that we have. I not going through our dungeon and trying
to find all the previous stuff to get anymore. Um, we can certainly do that later, but starting with I works 2022 we had 70 permits of all types across the city. In 2023 we had 154. 2024 we saw 295. Um, obviously we know
we had the the water sewer plant go live and wastewater plant go live and there was a lot more uh permits being used for that. Uh this year we saw it kind of go back down to that 158 number. Um which I think is going to be kind of common for the next couple years and will actually
probably go up in 2026 and 2027. I would imagine we'll probably get closer to 175. Um with new infrastructure coming in the buildings um for housing, commercial um and just all the permitting that comes with that. We'll probably see an
increase in those permits that come through our office. So that just shows the amount of work that will be increasing until we get up to about 2020 or 2030 which phase 1b that's going to jump those numbers again. We're going to see a big increase um as we start that
project. So, our key cost drivers for 2026, personnel wages, taxes and benefits, project management and contractual service increases, and then operational growth and service expectations. Being able to provide services for the
city, maintain operations, um, and really just keep those base operations while this year also, like I said, planning for some growth with the CIP. that was an extra $262,000 that we've never really budgeted for before. Um, and so, you know, that's something
though that was asked for in those community groups and our boards and commissions. You know, what kind of projects do we want to see coming through also with our departments, you know, long range planning is what we're starting to get into with this. Um, and then the coming months, my plan is to
have the CIP um, uh, CIP presentation as I'm working on that 10-year plan of a CIP kind of layout as I work with the department heads starting in January to really sit down and go, okay, where are we at for, you know, the next 10 years? What
projects do you have do you want to put on the wish list? So, as a city, we can really sit down and look and go, okay, each year we need to be kind of planning for x amount of expenditures potentially. Um, and that way we have a better idea coming into the budgets each year.
So, with that, the final numbers after all of our workshops, you'll see them up here on the far left. Those are the 2026 numbers. Um, on the right hand side is the 2025s. really tough to tell from these screens.
Um, but like I said, our our total revenue uh expenditures 2,181,448. Uh, of that nonpropy taxes 537,832, which leaves our general levy at 1,643616. We have a debt service in our final year
for 31,500 which brings the total levy to 1,675,116. Um that is a difference from last year of $261,851. Um which brings us to a tax rate of 43.9. Like I said, that is a tax
decrease from last year's 44.8 8 of about 08% and brings the total levy to 18.5% down from the 36 uh point something that we had in the preliminary.
So the next steps for the budget process tonight, we'll hear some public input. Um then council will review and consider when we get to that point in the agenda and do the final adoption and levy. And then this is some information as well. while we had that posted online.
Again, this will be I'm going to post this presentation tomorrow morning on our website so people have access to review it then too. Um, but that again will just kind of give another opportunity for people to click into to to look at and where to go for engagement. So,
>> questions. >> Great. Thanks, Jason. >> Um, do you want me to do like the four talk about the 425 stuff real quick? >> Sure. while we're here. Okay, so we'll switch back to that. So, we had
gone over um the 425 uh budget. So, what we need to know about the 425, right? It's like, you know, you got to do it like a savings account. We're putting in the money. Um we're we're delegating. Hey, this is where we'd like to see it go to. Um at
the end of the day, the council can pull the money from wherever they want to in there. It's it's it's council money, right? So, if there's an emergency that happens where we need to pull money, we're going to pull it from any one of those areas um to be able to use it because it is city
money and council money. Um but like I said, we're trying to plan up and save for certain projects across a variety of departments. Um so, you know, that's that's something to keep in mind though. Like I said, council needs to understand at the end of the day, if that money needs to be used for something, you guys
have the right to do that. And um so we've first up is the um fire department. No, it's the revenue side. Revenue side. There we go. Um so fire departments in there. They've got 30,000 for starting
to build up for vehicle replacement. Um that's a year-over-year kind of investment into their account. Um you know, and that could change some years if we've gotten the ability to do more. We can put more in. Um they've got in their air pack replacement fund for 2030 is the projected date and putting away
35,000 a year and then their 2013 lease payment for the shark that we just purchased 2024 um that one is included in there. Public works uh vehicle replacement that is uh
$10,000 they're putting in there right now for vehicle replacement. streets and roads. Um you'll see again this one started at 224,000. That was for the projects that were put together in our our pavement management plan. Um
we did find some funds that we were able to utilize from this year's budget to be able to take over a majority of that cost. So that's been reduced down to 44,000. However, you need to be reminded that the next cycle through this that number is going to go back up. We're
going to start budgeting for that again. So, that'll be something to to keep in mind for coming years. Uh we kind of had that that one-time gift, if you will, right now for this this coming year. Um for the shop, we've got $25,000 for
facility replacement. Um you know, this is looking a 10-year type project to build up to 250,000. Um which I mean, it's going to be more than that, but we got to get started somewhere with it. uh parks and recreation. After the last
budget workshop, we kind of things have moved around a little bit and it looks like we've got $65,000 set aside for the paving of Riverwood Hills trails and the Oronoko Park trails. Um I think that was the
>> Yeah, that would be a two-year plan. >> Yeah. And that's going to spread over a couple years. So, we'll be able to kind of budget for that in 2027 as well. And then for the community center city halls, the security system upgrades installs for 15,000.
And that is the the 425 that's the transfer out for the total of 262,000. To to clarify for the parks and trails and the repaving of it, the 65,000 that could be spent this year or we wait do
next year for the whole 130? >> I don't know. We haven't decided yet. I think it we could always get bids and see what it comes out to, but most likely it probably makes more sense to wait and do it all at once versus in two
segments. But >> but there is a lot of push to have it done this year. But I think they'll they'll be happy knowing that's there where they can work on those bids and, you know, if it works out, let's get it going. And, you know, it's what the residents been asking for.
So, so yeah, that is the 425. So, >> right. So, with that, um, public hearing is open at, uh, 7 o'clock 7:01.
Yes, we opened it before. So, we'll go ahead and people that like to speak um, please come to this forum, state your name, address, and, uh, carry your comments with us. Steven Norland, 845 First Street
Northwest Orno. Uh, I'm probably one of the long-term residents of this community. Uh, I've been in the Oronoko city since 1983.
Uh, I purchased my home in 85. And my taxes back then in 1985 were $600 and that was homesteaded. And now
they are $4,000. And what have I gotten for that $4,000? Well, the in and there were years between 1985 and 19 or 2025
that there was a reduction in our taxes. Okay. But now since an individual has taken control of our city who believes that this community
ought to be what brought me here was the small town feel. Okay. The affordability to live here for one thing. We used to have horses down here by Pat Hall's property. Uh I used to have horse here.
individuals downtown. I know there's still animals here and that gives that small town feel. We had a community here also. We had fireworks every year since every time I've been out here. That has
all changed and now they want this be this big metropolis. I've heard numerous times we want senior housing here. Okay, you are taxing me right out of my home. I am paying $4,000.
Well, this year I'm paying for. And if you add 18% on to it, 18.5% I believe Jason said. That's brings it up. Okay.
I don't plan on going anywhere. >> But you're forcing me out, you know. So, I'd like to say my parents taught me, you know, if you don't have the money, you don't buy it. So, keep that
in mind, please. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm Chris Liam, 1145 West Center Street. Um, I want to ask Jason a question. Is this
the total levy from the city right here? 36%. Is this >> what What does this tell? >> So, this was the preliminary. This is what was passed in September is kind of the placeholder where we worked through the last couple months. We had budget workshops to kind of talk about how we
could bring it down. And then what we just presented, this is now 18.5. So it's not 36.71, it's now 18.5. >> Okay? But this is still what I'm going to get tax. My tax increase is going to be
and according to this, my home's gone up in value of 43,000 in one year. >> I don't I don't think so. >> This this would be about half of what probably end up paying. So it' be about half of that is what the city portion of
your taxes would be. And then as far as the value of the house, that's up to Homestead County. We don't make that valuation, right? >> That's the county that makes that. >> I get that. >> So we have zero control. >> This won't be what it's saying it is. >> No, that's >> because this is what the total comes out
to right now. Almost $700 in tax increases and levies just this year. Yeah, >> I think that's >> this this will go down by this number right here is going to go down by half and then however they do their calculation of that. So this is you got like a
3,000. So this is going to go down by whatever half of that is. >> Okay. >> So we end up taking that out. So 500 something. That's what $5105 is going to be where that should be at instead of the
th00and. >> Okay, >> that make sense. We reduced it by half of what the proposed was where we're at. So, >> okay. >> Half of the proposed half of that is going to be >> okay. So, 500 >> 500. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> So, you take that amount out of I believe that's your total for all three for county, city, and school districts. And then the special assessment here. Um, >> but this is what it's that that's what
was proposed. But >> sorry. >> Okay. Sorry. This is 25, this is 26, right? >> So, actually, you're half of that. So, yeah, you're taking >> if that's half of >> that, that's what it's going to be is going to be. That's 600 something dollars for the city instead of 1300. >> Okay.
>> 600. So, you'll take that amount, the half of this out of out of this, which is going to lower it down 600 something. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? Sorry, I was looking at the wrong date. All right. Well, I guess that isn't near as bad as what what the paperwork shows, but
still, >> it's always a shocker in September. >> Still, >> I don't think the taxable market value of my home has gone up 43,000 in one year. >> I'd like to sell my house for what they say it's worth.
>> And you can you can contest that with the county. You contact them and talk to them. They have >> I think that's steep. There's a a board of equalization meetings usually the first week in April. >> Yeah. >> It's when they have these you can take that to the county and and state your
case and and uh sometimes they'll ask you can house can be reappraised too. >> Thanks for >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> Telling me about how this all works. Thank you. >> Anybody else would like to speak? Good evening. Patricia Shields, 540
Minnesota Avenue. I am here because I was told this is where I need to go to have my house re-evaluated. I firmly believe that because of the Dollar General being directly across
from me, it has severely affected not only my ability to enjoy my home and my yard, but it's also affected my value a great deal. Um, I'll start with my house was built in
1890. I have diminished structural value. Number one, because I have water in my basement on a regular basis. Number two, because my floors do the wiggle and the wobble. Um, and number four, because my windows are 40 years old. Um,
>> Patricia, I don't mean to interrupt you real quick. You're I would love you to keep going, but I want you to know we don't do the assessment value for your property. That's with the county. >> That's what I was told I'm supposed to be here for. We don't we don't >> talking tell me where I'm supposed to be
because did I miss a meeting already? >> No. Like we were just talking about the previous gentleman. We don't control the assessed value of the property. That's done through Mstead County. Okay. >> And they hold a meeting in April. >> Okay. >> With their group to contest those property values to be able to change your rates for 2026. So you'll be able
to meet at they'll have a board of equalization meeting in April and they will do that. If you want to get us your information, we can find that exact information out for you and get it to you. Send an email or something like that so you have that information.
>> This is extreme. My house isn't worth what they've got registered for 2025, let alone what they think they're going to agree to. >> Yep. But that's that's unfortunate. That's out of our control. That's that's up to the Mstead County to make that determination. We don't do that. So, >> if you could get that to me, I would be
very apprec. So, if you want to make sure we have your phone, I'm sure we've got your phone number. >> Delete this list of reasons or no, >> you can if you want to. You can hold on to it because if you're going to have to speak to them in April, I might want to hold on to that. >> Very good. >> You're more than welcome to keep talking. I just didn't want you to
>> go into a whole thing. So, >> need to know what's because this is what said I was supposed to be here. >> Yeah. That and I also believe there's a truth and taxation meeting on the county level and school board level. >> Each one holds a truth in taxation. >> Different one. Unfortunately, ours is
the same night as the school boards. >> Yeah. Which is also Pine Islands is tonight and I think Mstead County already did theirs last week and so they kind of all hit in December on the same night. >> Is there a date on there when they meet? I thought it's on the proposed >> It is which is why I'm here. That's why
I'm confused. >> Yeah. So, our date is not sure >> for the county. Yeah, there should be a date for the county on that sheet. >> Can I see it? I think there was a date on there. >> That was the number. Am I understanding that correctly? >> Each one has a date on it.
>> Yeah. >> I don't know that >> county. >> Yeah. But I don't know that the equalization meeting information's on those taxes. April's not but the one that >> but that's just their that's the same
thing. They're treating taxation as to what they're taxing >> for for Mstead County. That's the adjustment. >> No, it's not the adjustment. It's just Homestead County's truth for taxation. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, >> yeah, it does have the same date on here. >> It says right here. It says December
16th. >> December 16th and here. >> Well, that but that's for our truth and taxation. >> That's the truth and taxation meeting here today. >> Yeah, that's the school board. >> But this isn't >> Yeah, this is this is our truth and
taxation meeting. So, this is just to talk about the property. This is when the meetings every jurisdiction talks about their meetings. >> So like they're talking about >> here go before council and have your property addressed >> through the county the equalization.
>> It was here. >> Well, yeah, they may do that here. They may come to the the communities and do that. >> Okay. >> But it's not um it's not now. This is just for our our city to read the tax. >> That's why because it's listed it's being here and that's what
>> Yeah. And so they they give you the dates for each one of these um groups. So like theirs is on Thursday, ours is >> Rochester School District is on Thursday. So I had no idea. Okay.
>> And anytime you have questions, you can always come in and ask, too. We'll try to help you out. >> Well, I just thought it'd be easier to just come out. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. No problem. I mentioned the April month, but um all they have right now on the
state county board of 2026 equalization meeting is sometime in June. So, >> and they'll have not exact date yet. So, >> we'll we'll figure that out if you want to. Thank you. >> Okay. Is that something we want to post on our website?
>> Yeah, we certainly will. Is there anybody else who would like to speak up? >> Thank you. >> Thanks for coming. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody on Zoom that would like to speak?
>> Joy and taxation. >> Joyy's got her hand raised. >> Yes. Is it all right that I speak now, Jason and Mayor? >> Yep. >> Okay. Joy Bertzinger, Southwest Orunnco.
Um, I just want to say I appreciate the time that you spent bringing down the budgeted amount from about 38% increase to just under the 20% increase. There are needed expenses that I see on
your budget. Uh, but I'm hopeful that residents can see actual improvements for the increases we are paying after several years of playing catchup. I am hopeful our taxes will level off for
next year's tax levy. I also want to mention that I did speak with Homestate County in April about the huge increase in my property value. I have an older home again 40 years old and I was told
that it has nothing to do with my house. The increase in value was the land value which happened throughout our city of Oronoko and I'm hoping that next year that levels off as well.
I do ask that next year during your um time when you're setting the tax levy for 2027, when you set that in September of 26, please
set a reasonable tax levy of no more than 10%. Then work to bring that down to not more than 8%. Please, no more pie in the sky type of budget tax levies that you're giving
um only to have our residents feel grateful that the increase was cut in half by December. Also, I just want to mention that unless the council and residents understand the
need for smaller lot sizes in parts of our city, taxpayers will continue to see doubledigit city tax increases. More properties mean the tax burden is
divided by more taxable properties. Also, smaller lots mean a more diverse population. Please help all to have the chance to live in our great city. Thank you and
thank you again for your time. >> Thank you, George. >> Anybody else on Zoom would like to speak? Bring it back to city hall. Anybody else would like to speak at this time? Okay. Um,
we'll go to the next regarding you said the budget itself. There's anybody like to speak to the budget itself or a particular item on the budget. Take a good time to speak to that. >> I have one comment to make.
looking at things and um looking at what we have for personnel and personnel increases that there are in the city. Um it would be I think it'd be wise to take a look and see if we couldn't adjust the financial
person and also a person that's taking over Mel's position to have that as one position instead of two physicians. um and take a look especially for this year that's coming up. I don't see that that big increase right now that we're
going to have for permits and different things that there are. But I think that that might be a place that we could turn around and save some money that there would be and to post and just see what we come up with that way and see if there might be somebody that would fit into that. >> Do you want to take two jobs and combine
them into one? >> Yes. I just want to put out there I'm strongly opposed to that because that's kind of what we're already doing now and it's overworking and taxing on the staff. So that's my opinion on that for council to consider.
>> Well, we have we closed this hearing yet. >> Was that public hearing closed yet? >> No, not yet. So is there anybody else would like to speak to the budget? And the last item is the 425 or the CIP. Um
couple sheets about what money we're putting towards future projects and um in addition to current projects and that we're plan on doing 2026. So if there's anybody would like to speak to that, please step forward to the podium.
Anybody on Zoom would like to speak to that? Right. Second final call for public hearings and third and final call for public hearing. With that, we'll close at uh 7:20. when we get to the resolutions later
then we can have our discussion among the council members. Okay. Uh next item is a flattering hood 2026. >> Make a motion we approve.
>> Mayor, this is Mike. You don't you don't have to move and motion anything. >> Pardon me, I got a sore throat. It's just a notice letter. Our contract just says we notice you with our rates once a year for the next year. So, it really
doesn't need to be in the packet, but I guess as an FYI, it's there. >> Uh Mike, what kind of a what what is there anything that's changed in that from last year? >> Yeah, I mean, we up our rates every
year. I just didn't see the comparison to know what was what? >> Yeah, I don't I know the general I mean there's a rate schedule there, Paul. Um, and I know the general municipal rate. That's the one I'm almost all your your bills are under that rate or the
majority of your bills. Just give me a second. I'm trying to pull it up. I believe it's 215 and it used to be 205, but I can't. For some reason, I've got Jason's chart up in the agenda and it's not letting me.
>> Got to scroll to the side, Mike. It >> What now? Scroll to the side. >> Go left or right. >> Oh, I see. There's a toggle left or right. There it is. Okay. Sorry. You had that other one um sideways. I see that. Yeah. So, on the chart, the top rate,
the attorney rate of 215, that was 205 last year. So, it increased $10. And then each of the rates went up a little bit. I I just I could get that get that information for you. I don't know. I don't know what each one is. Um 25 versus 26 off the top of my head, but um
yeah, >> thank you. >> Any other comments? >> Paul, would you like like him to get those rates or just >> It doesn't matter. We get charged it anyway. But >> yeah, I just I want to make it so we
know to do it. Well, at least we just wanted to know. That's all. >> It would be interesting be interesting to know. So, >> yeah, Mike, if you can pull those together and send them, you can send them straight to council and include me on it. And >> yeah, we we sent it last year, but I can pull them up. I think it's usually five
about 5%, but we increase give or take, you know, each year. Um, Sure. I'll make a note and do that this week. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Okay, moving on to the fire department.
There are some elections. You like to speak to it at all? We have a list of names for the uh chief Johan Zenberg. First assistant Dan S. Second assistant, Leif Denning,
training officer Dustin Nemo. Nezmo, EOC directors added grace. So with that, make a motion we approve the proposed leadership of the fire department. I second that. Comments, questions.
>> Are these one-year terms? >> Fire department? Yes, they're one-year terms. on the first responders. It's two-year terms. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I >> I post
approved. Next is first responders. Director is Gwen, sorry. Assistant director OBnik, Deputy Assistant Danielle Johnson, training officer Jane Schulty Whiting,
Secretary Kathy Brandt Rucker. I make a motion to accept those. >> I'll second those comments. See none. All those in favor signify by saying I.
post. It's approved. ERC employee relations committee has a couple items, three items on the first one is a Minnesota paid leave, the memo,
the page 19 that Jason put together for the council. We need a motion to approve that. I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> So within the letter, it addresses the
proposal. Oops. The recommendation is to council that we approve full-time employees split cost. 88% with the city 50/50. Each party would
pay an equal share of the 0.44% of the benefit payment. The city would cover 100% of the benefit cost for the fire department, first responders, planning and zoning commission, and city council.
So these costs, although the percents are very large, the approximate cost of the city would be as follows. and it's being pro proposed in the 2026 budget. So, the city staff amount would be $2,800, fire department $150,
emergency responders 150, planning and zoning 50, and city council 150. >> Anything else anybody would like to add? >> That kind of complicate your payroll or whatever.
>> No. Uh BSNA has multiple clients in Minnesota. They're already planning on getting that going January 1. Um so it really doesn't change much of anything. We did talk to the attorneys and they clarified that we can pay 100% for these
groups and 50% for these groups. That wasn't an issue. I know that was brought up at the one of our workshops. So um that's why we just continued with this. >> Okay. Any other comments? See none. All those in favor signify by
saying I. I. Post. Same sign. It's approved. Next item for a motion is a there's a submission form page 21 >> development adoption of the standardized
employment application process. >> We missed administrative day one. the motion to approve administrative days for the 26 and January 2nd. >> I'll second that. If that's a motion, >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second.
>> So, this is December the 26th, Friday after Christmas and January 2nd, the day after New Year's. So, any comments? Seeing none, all favor signify by saying I.
>> I opposed. approved. Next item is um Oh, I'm sorry. >> Back to where you were before the standardization employment. >> No, I'm sorry.
>> The motion was for the city staff. This is the next one is the development advice employment application process. And so what that is asking for is the recommendation is to
put together a standardized employment application process. It's uh requesting a formal job description prior to posting any position, submission and retention of the original application at city hall in accordance
with the general records retention which is a state requirement. Completion of the federal 4, W4, Minnesota W4 and federal I 9 forms as required by law. verification and
retention of all on I9ification documents. Issu is issuance and retention of a formal written offer and acceptance letter. And number five is a legal authorization for city administrator to work with
existing employees to complete all legally required hiring docu documentation. >> I think I think a great idea. I don't know if you need a motion. You said it further. Is there supposed to be a motion with that or >> There's a motion. >> Second
Jim Daniel, right? Marie Daniel. >> So this is yeah this motion in this process is just to clearly identify more of mind if a general employment uh than any other job. So, we're just asking our city employees to document
and fill these forms out. So, it's it's important for record retention. It's also important for insurance. Uh it's just a good documentation to put in place. So, very great. Any other comments?
Seeing none, all those in favor sign. I I post. It's approved. Okay. unfinished business. Couple quick discussion items.
>> First one is this Jim requested these three items. The status of the forensic audit. I >> think that's coming on Thursday, right? >> Thursday we have a meeting with a presentation by the auditor. >> Yep. >> December 18th at 6:30 p.m.
>> Yep. We'll set up a zoom for it >> so it'll be anybody can watch online. It's just a presentation meeting. Anybody can go and whatever. It's just going to be all open. Not taking any action or anything. Just in presenting the findings from it. >> So are they going to be here? >> Yes. Okay.
>> He is going to be here on Zoom as well. >> Yeah. >> And then is that complete? >> Yes. Okay. Public also. >> What? Public? >> Absolutely. Everything everything is public except
for a closed hearing. >> And the other was the status of the River Park drain field development and I saw that in the EDA consent that there was looking at that. Okay. So I put that before I got
>> the packet. Okay. So, but I did see that that. So, is that progressing ahead then or is it >> uh we have a meeting on the 22nd, December 22nd. So, we'll get an update on what we were proposing for Kurt to work on to bring that to our EDA
meeting. So, >> and the other one was the status of the gold rush crossing development. I just haven't heard anything on that recent or >> nothing. We don't know where What's the timeline on that? Three months on that head for >> No, there was six total.
>> Six total. >> So, I think we're counting down. We're probably >> fifth, I think. >> I knew it expired. I just don't remember when. >> All right. So, next item is a summary of conclusions of the
evaluation of performance of city administrator Jason Baker pursuant to Minnesota statutes 13D.05 subdivision 3. And with that, I have the comments that I'll read at this time.
On September 16th, 2025, the city council held a closed meeting to evaluate the performance of city administrator Jason Bacon Baker, sorry. In accordance with the governing law at this council meeting, which is the next possible open council meeting following
the previously mentioned close meeting, the city council is required to summarize the conclusions of the evaluations reached by the council at the September 16th, 2020 close meeting. City Administrator Baker did not request that such fe.
As a result, the evaluation of city administrator Baker's performance took place at a closed meeting as provide the Minnesota open meeting law. The conclusions as chairperson of this committee, I will now provide a summary of those conclusions reached by the council from
the September 16th, 2025 evaluation. These comments were summarized by our HR attorney. City administrator Baker was evaluated on numerous aspects of his performance. While city administrator Baker meets and occasionally exceeds some expectations,
further development in certain areas is necessary. City administrator Baker demonstrates song strong initiative in working extended hours to ensure timely completion of task. City M administrator Baker must improve
communications between himself, council, and other city departments as to facilitate shared understanding of information prior to making decisions rather than maintaining sidle lines of communication. City administrator Baker should seek to
improve his general interpersonal communication to improve relationships with staff and council. City administrator Breaker demonstrates highly sound analytical skills but should seek improvement of ensuring his skills is demonstrated in his overall
final work product. Despite needing improvement on certain aspects of this performance, the mayor and city council believe Jason can develop into a highly effective city administrator. A salary increase is warranted based on city administrator Baker's performance
evaluation and potential. So with that after the reading we'll go to the next item on our agenda which is a motion to approve city administrator salary increase for city administrator Jason Baker.
Just a couple things here to comment on. First member, as you are aware, we evaluated the performance of city administrator Baker during a closed meeting on September 16th, 2025. However, specific salary adjustments
were not negotiated or approved. We will now discuss any salary increases in this open position. So, with that, open for discussion. Somebody got to make a motion specific motion for open for discussion.
>> A second. No, we had discussed a three and a half% cost of living increase for nas. That was a hit in our Yeah, we talked about a cost of living which is 2.8%. >> I thought we had said we would do 3.5
which is what everybody else was getting in the city to keep it equitable for what what the rest were getting. So in our discussions we looked at different options and uh
the one option was a three and a half% uh at one January and then we were going to put and we did put the list of goals together and then effective one July uh with meeting the goals there would be a 5%
increase for rest of the year salary. So those two, that approach of three and a half and 5% was a budget-wise, this is where it gets kind
of sticky. Budget-wise, it's $98,82051 for my calculations. >> That's with which percentage? That's the three and a half one January and 5% after meeting the goals one July. that in my conversations with our HR
attorney, um that's kind of a complicated process because the first six months is based on a um it's based on a $96,410
salary, annual salary after one July the 98 I should say one July through end of December that's based on $11,230.76. So that's it's a a complication from results from
our pay studies that we send to the state and it's my understanding and Mike you can comment too please but it's my understanding that that's it's complicated to do it that way. So which salary do you really put in there for
the yearly salary? >> So I think we >> I think we just leave it the three and a half% for the year. I just know that uh so far by using Mike her attorney on going over this issue
has cost the city $10,532 so far and we don't have a resolution. I mean that's 10 grand that we've we've we've given up from the city money just to get this resolved. I mean how long do we keep going with this? I mean, it's
like we it's to me that's $10,000 we could have saved. >> Are you talking about his review or what are you talking >> No, I'm talking about the cost that there is for the attorney going through the relations for for uh what we I just
looked at the cost of what the checks were this last month of what we sent to them for employee relations and it was $10,532. That's that's a lot. That's the only one. That's the only one that was >> That's the only one that was in question.
I just think that that's >> Well, I can't speak to the cost. I just know that >> I mean, some of it was our personnel policy because we wanted them to look at that. We also asked them about the Minnesota paid leave. So, it's not just that. >> I just looked at it this last month,
which is what we were working with. But Jason, >> we've actually been working with them on their personnel policy, too. It's still >> so I mean >> a lot of money. >> It is a lot of money but it's not just for for the performance on on this. The other thing I would be mindful of this
is the first time we've actually really held ourselves to a standard of reviewing our administrator. Hopefully we have a process that we can keep moving that forward that we don't need legal team to weigh in on it if we have the framework of what we should be doing. Right. So this is trying to get
us on a framework and a structure to do it. Jason can expect to know what he's getting. We can know the process. So again, I think there is a little bit of upfront cost that we had to use to to get a really strong framework and to make sure that it was legal to do from
an HR perspective. So looking at the two-step process, it appears it it's it's it's risky to do it. It's um >> risky to do what? >> They actually adise >> actually go with the two process. >> They advise not to have it based on
performance that it would be a flat rate and that performance would be evaluated every cycle of his appraisal. >> So it the performance portion. Yep. So, it wouldn't be a six-month bump. It would be for a year based on the last
year's performance. So, we talked about the three and a half to the five. Um, they actually recommended that we don't pursue that because it could um get us into some sticky situations based on performance and expectations of performance and
monitoring the goals um in a consistent way. Well, if that's the case, then it was based on last year's performance. We had last year's performance. Okay. And that last year's performance only justified the 3.5 cost of living.
So, if that's the case, I'll stick it at the 3.5 because of what last year's performance was. >> The cost of living last year was 2.5. >> No, I'm just saying. But because if we're looking at and going to report it, it would report on what it was for the
evaluation for him last year, which we've already done, which is based off of the 3.5. So if you were going to submit it, I would go that direction with the 3.5 then if that's what it is to keep us out of trouble.
>> It was 2.5 last year, but you 3% and a half, but that was a 1% performance then. city had a 1% performance meeting. That must have been an employee relations thing was last year at the city council. >> I'm just thinking of three and a half%
given to him. Of that 3 and a half% for his contract, he gets cost of living. So that was only 2.8% or 2.5%. So essentially you have 1% performance increase from 90,000 to 93 was three and
a half. I guess I wasn't really in need of performance. >> Last year contract he was awarded the two and a half% but we funded it as a three and a half. So it was a 1% for performance. >> I think three and a half was what the
other positions were getting right Jason for the living. >> Yeah I think so. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So if we're for to follow up on what Marie's saying, so what we need to do as a council is to decide is determine the salary effective
one January for the complete year. So when 2027 pay studies requested by the state, we can say this is what his annual salary was. So >> three and a half. So I did touch base with a recruiter
um that we used and u city administrators are there there's quite a demand for city administrators right now and u he shared there's five different cities
in between 1500 and 22500 and it's been two years since we hired Jason But right now, the going rate for hiring a new administrator in our size of class
is around 103 to 104,000 um is what the going rate is for. >> Well, again, when when you're looking at that, you have to take into account the number of years those people have been working at, you know, in that position
and and none of that is stated when you look at that dollar amount. So, I know it's great to look at it, but that's not creating or or being apples to apples. We don't know the full detail of what there is for surrounding communities.
And it's also a situation that, you know, if it was 100% and we didn't have the issues that we were looking at that came up, that would be a different story as well. The key is to get those those particular items addressed to be able to
move ahead. So, I think that where we're at right now is to use that 3.5, stick with that. And I mean, we can throw all and Jason gave I don't know probably 200 cities that there were when when he was looking at that. And I can
understand him wanting to to get an increase. Everybody does. But it's also something that needs to be mentioned that he's a part of this employee relation committee. And so he's on the committee that's looking at increasing
his salary too which really shouldn't be a part of that committee. >> That should be that should be done. >> I don't any part of that >> on that committee. >> Yeah. We >> no discussions on that committee. >> Right. Well I again I just just incorrect statement.
>> We didn't have any input from a committee for that. So in my conversation with the recruiter about city administrators, even when we're talking about Jason with his two years experience, he thought that was a very
logical type of salary for that type of experience. you mentioned experience and he has two years of experience and uh I I think the evaluations that we talked about was was fair but at the same time I I feel like
he's been uh he's been a great add to the city and their hard challenges but at the same time I think he's exhibiting uh a willingness to improve the city. There's a lot of things he's done that we've never done with any previous three
or four city clerks. Um, so I see that as a huge benefit and his uh work ethic has a has a lot to do with what he's accomplished. You get reports every week on Friday updates. You see all the different activities that he's involved with. Um, and just the development of
the city itself. Um, he's helping that go come about. uh he's got a great networking with his fellow city administrators. He's learning from that and he's using that to his advantage too. So I think there's just a
lot of lot of positive of him coming or that he's developing but hopefully he will uh take that for helping with the betterment of the city. And I know there's a lot of personnel issues, but at the same time, you put those things aside about the work that he's done, and
I think it's it's very deserving of a raise if you know, if you did, for like example, the budget right now is 104,000. So, um, versus like 102,000, you know, just
compare those two numbers. Um, you know, there's not much difference between $494 an hour at 102 versus $50 an hour per 4,000. Um, through the whole budget workshops, we've used 104,000.
And you know, we're talking two $3,000 difference or more, not much more than that. Well, if we talk two or $3,000 in every item we're on here, we're five workshops in the works of we're not
going to go through line items. >> Well, those well those two or $3,000 items, they add up. You start throwing three, four, five, six of them in a night. Got to be real. >> I'd like them at the three and a half%. That's where I'll stay. I'd like to propose that since we were looking at
doing a 5% in July that maybe we do the three and a half plus the half of that five. So two plus the two and a half. So it would be a total of six um
6% total for the year. That would be his contract at 2 and a.5% cost of living with a three and a half% raise. >> Well, first of all, we've got to have him perform with what the issues are for
6 months. Okay. So, you know that that raised part of it is and the question came up, what do we need to to submit to this to the state? And we submit to the state the three and a half, which is realistically where we're at now and
truthfully where we're at right now. Yeah, I think the goals are still good for his first six months and I see those goals as helping bright his performance review when you do them in July or when we're supposed to be doing them. So yes, there's no
dollar figure there, but it is a prerequisite for our evaluations to see how he met those goals going forward. I think because of some of the goals and just the focus on some of those things,
I think a a 6% would be hard for me to go with. I do think that we we should think about how um increases between the city administrative salary compared to other
staff also is in effect. Um because there are six or seven goals that we would like to see implemented um with a quick turnaround time. I don't I I don't think I could do six. I
I'm I'm probably in the four and a half as a friendly wager. and stick with the three and a half until he finishes with the six months that there are for improvements. >> We they advise against that, >> but I'm just I'm I'm looking at that
too. I mean, I just I want to see those goals met as well, you know, and I think that's going to help everybody that there is involved. There's no question about that, you know. So, you know, I think with the other employees in the city getting three and a half, that's
that's where I'm looking at too on on being across the board being being equal with that where we're not going with the individual other employees and saying, "Okay, you deserve to have five, you deserve to have seven." We're not doing
that with the other employees, you know, and so that's where I'm still saying that the three and a half makes more sense. I understand your point quite well taken, Daniel, and what what you're looking at. I'm just saying we got to keep it equal across all the
employees of the city. Well, I would argue the percent is is, you know, I appreciate what you're saying, but at the same time, I think it's it's reflective of him providing the leadership for the city.
Providing the leadership for the city is Brad. All of our positions are important. >> Yeah. >> Without a city administrator, and we know what it's like without a city administrator. We've done it three times now. It's not a fun experience when you go five, six months without a city
administrator. >> I know we've always had somebody to fill in. So, we've been able to cover that. So, Shirley did a wonderful job. So, >> but that's not a, >> you know, I don't want to don't downplay that. So, we are never without having an ability to do that. Um, again, I'm I'm
just saying it's it's equal for what there is for the other employees that there are in the city. And that way it keeps us I think right with what we're doing with the state >> respect keeping >> right now in our September
third I think it was workshop he shared um cities with populations of um >> and $51 was the average for those 19 cities that we looked at in our in our
population range, >> but we don't >> with with all due respect again there was no information given on how many years those people had been with those cities or all the other stuff that there is. It's pretty easy just to have that
and look at that point and I don't think that's the full picture of what there is. >> I'll share this picture with you. Let's say Jason leaves or hate to see that happen. So then all of a sudden to find somebody to replace him, we've lost
four, five, six months because there is a market for city administrators and we're going to have to pay a premium to get a city administrator. >> Well, maybe >> Can I finish, please? >> Sure. >> So, we run the risk of getting somebody
in a in a quick time and having to pay 104 $105,000 to get that person. We don't know who that is. So, you're running the risk of that. And with the city that we're in a position right now to not have a city
administrator in place, it'd be a it'd be an unfortunate situation for a position that our cities in right now for growth. The growth will happen. If we were closer to the Iowa border, you know, it'd be a different story, but we're
not. We're in a unique situation that a lot of cities envy from the point of being able to grow. And that's why we have a wastewater system built for that because we need growth to help pay for it. Otherwise, if we don't grow, everybody that's sitting here now is
going to have to pay more and more for it. So when rates will go up, we need volume. We need we need density. And to have him leave now, >> he doesn't of course, but it's just a It would be a huge challenge for the city
to know I think so pay them accordingly. >> So So you're concerned about take if we had to pay 104 105,000 for for a replacement down the road you make it sound like it's a lot of money but then when you talk about when
you talk about increasing the salary to 5% you say it's just a little bit of money. So is it a little bit of money or is it a lot of money? The the other thing I was going to say, Ryland, is this that maybe another administrator would have the financial ability that
there would be to be able to handle the finances without having an extra person. And that way you could turn around and actually save money that there is for the city. So it it's not necessarily I'm just
whatifs. Okay. So it's not what >> we can we can talk all night about what is but at the same time >> first thing a city administrator may say do you have a financial person? >> Well no we don't we didn't want to hire somebody. >> No it's a catch 22.
>> It it it's a matter of do we have a financial person that might be able to take over Mel's stuff as well. And so it doesn't take a 100% financial person to be able to run this city. I don't think that a financial person would would spend eight hours a day, 40 hours a week
just behind looking at the finance. I think there's other things that can be done. I really do. >> So the difference between an annual salary from three and a half to six is 400 bucks. 300 bucks. Three
>> 300 words. >> 2,000. Oh, sorry. 2300. Sorry. I mean, 2200. >> Well, I respect keeping it equal and I hear what you're saying with that. Um, I think it's important to remember that
Jason was here at the beginning of the year holding down the fort by himself. um responsible for ramping up our two current employees, getting them going. So, there was additional training, there was additional turnover um that he was responsible for and he was still able to
maintain his um responsibilities dayto day. Um he's been responsive when we've asked him to do feedback. So, I have no doubt that when we give him his goals that he's going to respond to those positively and
meet those. So, I do h I I think the three and a half keeping it fair, but I do think that he deserves uh more especially from getting everybody going from the
beginning of the year of having nobody here except for himself and then Kane um for that whole first part of the year to get all that training and and ramp up done. Oh,
>> I think with the goals, if he meets them right, it's a different conversation next year because to me, those goals are are getting him um and the city to a place of like this is expectation
setting versus exceptional service. Like to me, I think if we if Jason can do those, I think next year is a very different conversation based on performance. Um, so I also want to make sure that that's known that some of
these things if we can get Jason and the staff on on the right path and not just Jason but the city and and making sure that we have some of those foundational pieces. >> I mean Jason agree hard worker. Um, you know, he puts in a lot of hours. He does
a lot of things that we probably don't see every day. So I also want to give him credit to that. Um, as well as making sure that we're competitive enough in case the risk of Jason leaving is there.
Um, as well, I mean, we can't be Rochester competitive, but I think we also need to rightsize to the budget, too. >> Agree with that for looking at next year where it would be at. Absolutely. So we got a long way to go. What are we
going to do? >> So getting sorry. >> We got a long ways to go. What are we going to do? >> Well, I I just more you know the cost living today is 2.8%. Um last year was 2.5
in my mind and maybe some other maybe not. I don't know. In my mind that was a 1% performance race. this year. I I think it's he's worthy of being paid for his performance over the last two years.
So, but the cost is 2.5 or 2.8. And if we were to put um a 6% performance based on the last two years experience, not just last year,
I think that would be worthy of a of a a possibility. What are you proposing, Ryan? >> Yeah. So what what are you proposing? >> Cuz you said six, right? >> Said six.
>> And are you saying six? >> 88. You said six. Bear with me a second here. >> What percentage are you thinking? Because Jason has his >> It's I'm thinking of it maybe 8.8
2.8 and I think six. >> He's taking your >> six to the 2.8. So 8.8 is what you're looking at. Perfect. the uh $101,347. >> It's a percentage. >> What's the percentage? >> What's the percentage? >> That's 8.8.
>> 8.8%. >> That includes cost of living, >> which is a 6% performance over the last 10 years. No, >> but we can only do this year. >> Just 3% each year. >> We can only do this year. We're looking at this year, Ryland. We're not looking
at last year. Looking at this year, and we're looking at what the performances that came into this. Okay. And we spent two and a half hours in a closed meeting to come up with the items that there are
for him to be able to improve. Okay. Two and a half hours. >> Okay. So what you're saying is that it should have been here's 8.8 eight. That's the end. No two and a half hours, no changing anything. We're giving him
everything when he hasn't really performed with the way. And the re and we have the reports that show the difference on the performance, too. Again, I'm going to go back to this. Three and a half% is what we're offering our employees of the city. And I tell
you what, we could probably have a couple people that there are from public work sit here and say how much more work that they did that they would like to have an 8% increase on what their salary is as well. I'll guarantee you that would be the case and they could sit
here and explain it the way that you're trying to explain it for Jason. But that's not what we did. We decided that the city was going to give three and a half%. That's where we stick. That's where we stay. And then the performance comes up.
Otherwise, that's that's a different story. But 8% no. Sorry. >> No. When we were talking in our close session or in general right now, of course, the three and a half cost one January 5% that's, you know, 8 and a half%.
>> But that's not starting out right now. He's got to prove that he's made those changes, right? That's what I'm saying. He's got to make those changes. What we talked about is what we're going to turn around and submit to the state of Minnesota which is the three and a half%. This is where the whole
discussion came up. I think what changed part of my changing was this the step process was not a good way to go. So we could either be deciding one January what the salary is for the whole year. And I think the comments and our
experiences for the last two years minus three months to me he's doing a lot of those goals already. We're looking at this year Ryan and next year not going back two years. >> That's done.
>> Okay. and and if he would have done that good a job at that point in time, we wouldn't be in this situation trying to get him to correct some of the issues that need to be done. You know, it's just I I'm going to take offense to that because I didn't have an annual review done by council. So, I would like that
comment not to be made. That's that's a bad comment. I think it reflects poorly on me, which is false because waited two years for an annual review. I can't correct what I never had the option to correct. So, >> and we want you to correct Jason. >> I understand that. I'm just saying that comment specifically was
>> almost behind is trying to get that correction. >> Well, it's it's it's a uh it's an issue, I guess, and I I think it's um >> So, what's the motion on the table? Three and a half.
I make a motion raise Jason salary to 8.8% which includes cost of living. That's a balance there. It's a total of $101,34720. a second.
Is there a second dice for a second? The next offer 3 and 12% make a motion for 3 and 12% to the state. That's what we we put down and we look after 6 months and uh we can find the money for
him to get okay. >> We talked about three and a half% but we also talked about the midyear raise which can't happen now. >> So I think that we need to have the discussion of bringing that some of that not all of
that forward. Um, so the three and a half plus I I still think the half half of what we were saying for July 1, which brings it to
six, it total is reasonable. >> Did you get a secondary motion? My motion was for three and a half. Okay. And then to look at what it is after the 6 months. Say you can't do that.
Can't do that. Then it's like everybody else that there is in the city is going to be at three and a half. >> Who second that? >> Nobody has. Oh, I'll second that. Three and a half%. motions for three and a half%.
Is that correct? >> You say with the reevaluation in six months, you have that up. Just make sure I'm writing this down. >> I don't think we should put that in there. for this for the wage comp the HR lawyer recommended strongly against
>> do it at three and a half then I'll >> second I'll second it at three if it stayed even through the year $96,410 96410 Yeah, I I I I personally can't vote for
that. It's just it's a it's a not it's not correct and it's um not a good situation to have those figures. >> Well, we got about 40 minutes into this conversation right now. So, where are we
going with it? We can drag this up till midnight. We were worried about the budget. >> Any other comments? I I just um I I don't agree with six and I don't agree with three and a half. I think
Jason's made remarkable improvement over just the last couple of months that again that performance period was based on before but I think he has that potential. So, I would like to give him a little bit more than three and a half
just to be able to say that one, we want you here, but we also need these goals met. I think that's an important statement. Agre I don't I don't agree with a six. Um that's why I was thinking like a a 4.5. I mean, I know it's small dollars, but
again, I think there's >> Is that a Is that a friendly motion that you're making? I'll accept that friendly motion. >> So that's an amendment to Jim's motion. Yeah. Good. >> And that would be throughout the year.
So that so goals would still need to be met, but that would not be it would not be in it a performance improvement at 6 months in terms of salary. >> That was 4%, right? Four and a half.
That's 97,34175. Probably round that up in the budget to 97345. Well, benefits and salaries. You round it up with the health hourly. >> Yeah, that's just that's just the base
salary rate. >> 97 34175. That's 46.80 an hour and you include health parah payroll just as every other employee brings the overall total 131985.68. So round it up to round number 93190
in the budget 14190. So 4 and a half% includes cost living. >> Yes, >> that would include that >> 2.8. So the performance is 1.7. That's how I look at that number.
Any other comments? I feel like that's still, but that's my opinion. Any other comments? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I post. Nay. Nay.
little bit. Next item is Lori. >> Hi. >> Yes. >> Hi Lori. >> Hi. Hey, Lori. >> Merry Christmas.
>> Merry Christmas to you. >> So, tonight this was added late this afternoon into the packet, the 2 35 pages or whatever it is. So I I think
it would be worthy of what our time frame and agenda for tonight that we we table it to the January 20th meeting. That okay, Lori. >> Is that okay, Lori? Did you hear that? >> Uh,
sorry. I think I second that motion by the way. >> Um, you want to say anything? >> I was waiting to get a hold of her. So, >> say she froze. She would. >> So, Mayor, I'm just going to I'm emailing her right now. I'm just letting
her know that you're tableabling it till January 20th in case she's frozen. At least she'll get my email hopefully. >> Thank you. >> So, go ahead with the vote. >> Y All in favor of the um planning and
zoning updates be tabled to the January 20th meeting. Okay. Along with that is the ordinance or there >> we need a vote on that one. >> Need a vote. >> Probably
need the vote on the table. >> Yeah, I got a first and a second. >> All in favor signify by saying I >> I talk about that agendas go read through it become familiar with it.
Next item is our city council payroll on page 269. I make a motion we approve No, it's just a spreadsheet. There's no attendance. There's no motion there. >> And I'll update it with Thursday's >> What's that?
>> I'll update with Thursday's event. Put that in there. That's not included. >> So, but that's just showing everybody what the what was there. Next item is our Jim had a
submission form regarding the um 130.007 code contribution of net profits to fund administered by city. So, what we're looking at, and I know that Kent's been working on this, and
with with Mel and uh bringing the monies back into the city for the 10% of the gambling. And uh my motion or what I want to do is to eliminate the ordinance that's there
and just have them keep that 10% that they normally have over there. make our accounting so much easier what we're trying to account what what funds to be put in and where it's being spent. I just think it'd be smoother for the
city. I think it'd be easier for fire relief to be able to keep that. We get audited with fire relief gets audited every year to know that everything is spent correctly, you know. So that way and a lot of the stuff like again thank you for what you
did with Santa Claus this year with with the Lions Club. That was a tremendous success of what was going on and so I know monies are spent that way too to to help the community on on everything that they do. So
>> should we wait to talk about this until after Thursday? if if you want to put it off till next month because we can find out with Thursday what's going on. I think we could do that. >> I would suggest that too. We don't know
what his suggestions might be. How to improve the OP use of the 10% or interaction with how the city uses the funds going forward properly. So, it's documented whether it's to the fire department or to the parks department or whatever
decide. sort of or if it stays just it just we eliminate the ordinance. So if you look at at what there is for the the ordinance the 3496 and if you pull that up and take a look at it it says May on everything that
shall. And so with that being May, it's it's okay for the fire department to be able or the fire relief just to keep that money. >> Well, if it says May, then it's not required that the city do that follow. >> Exactly. >> It's required unless there's a
resolution. >> And that's what I'm trying to do is put that forth off of it. But we need to repeal >> the ordinance first before I can do the resolution. After >> the ordinance, you don't need a resolution. You're taking away the whole ordinance. >> Okay. So that's what I want to do is
take that ordinance away. >> I agree with Daniel. I think we should wait further to say >> and and and again that's why I brought it up to to talk about that. So and I and I'm understanding with Daniel too off of that to put it off to next month.
>> It was close close enough to that that >> we can >> So you want to make a motion to table it? >> I'll make a motion to table it till January >> after we have the meeting on Thursday. I'll second it. >> Comments.
All in favoring it to the January 20th meeting. >> They had a question out here. Who had a question? >> I say I >> I >> I approved. They got a question. >> Question for the fire department.
>> Does that affect this next year's budget? So, does it need to be decided today if next year's if this 2026 budget's being decided? No. Okay. I don't think so. >> And I'm also would like to suggest that
you leave the ordinance and exempt the fire relief that I think is better for you guys and us instead of completely remove it. >> Yeah. I don't >> I guess our next one and not the other.
>> Well, aren't they two and the same? What >> you're talking about the fire talking about exempting the fire relief and what else versus >> exempting the fire relief from paying that fee instead of getting rid of the fee >> because if they decide ever not to do it again the ordinance is still there the
city's still getting money from whoever takes over >> another organization comes in you can still collect that fee from >> but you get rid of it it's gone that money's gone it's never coming in as a revenue we'd have to go through a whole process to get an ordinance back >> my investment would be to exempt us
is what I'm asking. >> Hey, so Lions want to start selling pull tabs, right? >> Or the city council. >> So we'll kick back. >> I'll bring that back. Right. >> Next item is a outstanding citizen
award. We got a late start. Something we still want to do. And um was today's the last day for good nominations? >> 31. >> 31. Okay. All right. U moving on to our
financials. First is a resolution 2025-30 assessing charges to property taxes payable 20267 just >> I make a motion we approve approve
resolution 2025-30 >> that's the budget >> no that's the people that have passed too for deals Yeah, I make a second on that one for 2025-30.
>> These are mostly I think it's all fees, utility fees or back interest >> put under the taxes. So, >> what we doing with Ornoco Estates? Is that the 22,000 or >> Yes,
>> Oak Meadows, whatever it is. It's Yes, it's a that's a 22,689. >> Those are the late >> that is states. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Some of these others with large numbers
on Vegas 2700 on one of them. >> There's a couple of them are 2700. >> Yeah. >> So, one of them is a salvage yard, too, though. >> The west one is the salvage yard. The second from the bottom is for no
estates. >> Okay. So this is a salvage. >> You have a resolution >> for the to record for the tax for the township. >> The bottom one must be for the salvage. >> It is. That's what she said. >> Is that just the interest that they
>> That's penalties and interest from 2020. Okay. >> 34 and 25. >> Okay. Okay. any luck with with or no estates or >> they're completely current monthly. >> But I'm just saying they're past due because I mean >> this is penalties and interest from 24
and the first portion of 25 January through June. >> Okay. Then after June they were current with everything. >> The township help out with that? >> No. Any
other comments? See all those in favor? 25 2025-30 signify by saying I. >> We have to do voice force resolution. >> Yes sir. All the roll please.
>> Ist. >> Hi. >> Councelor Phillips. >> Hi. Councelor Pentigrass Councelor Riseford Councelor Spring. >> Next is resolution 2025-31 resolutions approving the adoption of
the 2026 city oracle fee schedule. >> Uh as a comment Oh, you got to make a motion. Make a motion. >> Make a motion for discussion. I can ask >> um I'd like to see a side by side up
that way if we could with this year's versus next year's. >> Okay. >> I know I the only differences. Do we have any changes? >> The only changes to the fee schedule were water and sewer fees. There were no other changes to the regular fee schedule from 2025.
>> And those are with the increases that we had this year, right? For that was through the water. Yeah. Water was 5% and sewer was 10%. >> Yeah. >> The increases. >> Yeah. Okay. Then then I pull back. But
no, we're okay. So there's discussion. So we're ready to go. >> Comments. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> No, it's got to be a voice. Voice. >> Trying to move along. Mayor.
>> Hi. >> Councelor Phillips. >> Hi. >> Councelor Pendigrass. >> Hi. >> Councelor Riseford. >> I councelor Springs. >> Hi. >> Rachel, did you get that 41? >> Yes. Um, >> we got a resolution 2025-32
next. >> That's just to accept the November $894. So I make a motion make a motion to accept the $89412 from fire relief for this month. Second,
>> mayor of course >> 32 >> page 283 2025-32. >> Yes. >> Any other comments? >> Voice, please. >> Mayor Ior.
>> Hi. >> Councelor Phillips. >> Hi. Councelor Riceber. >> Hi. >> Councelor Penigrass. >> Hi. >> Councelor Spring. >> Hi. >> I do not put that one together. The order was not my fault. >> I see that occasionally.
>> I usually get the middle building. >> Oh, yeah. >> 33. >> Yes. That's next. Okay. The next item is the resolution 2025-33 to approve the final 2025 budget and tax
levy. >> Make a motion to adopt resolution 202533. >> Second for discussion. Thanks, Jim. >> Can I start off real quick? Um, I just put in the numbers based off of the
salary. Um, just an update, we are now at 43.7% tax rate, down 1.1%. Levy is at now 17.9%. We will obviously update the numbers in the resolution as well. We have the numbers set in the resolution. We know
we will update those. >> Would you agree about those figures you have? >> Yep. So the tax rate is 43.7 which is down 1.1% from last year. The levy percentage is 17.9%. The total levy is at
1,666,91. That is just for the the levy. That was just the one change with >> a nice salary setup that changes. >> One question. Um whether we cut out overtime. Yep. >> Yeah. >> So for like evenings like council
meetings that would be comp time then be >> flex time off. time. >> They don't get comp time because that would account for basically like same as overtime. So they would have to flex off hours. Okay. >> So which is fine. We'll make sure that we adjust so all city staff are 40 hours
a week. >> Okay. Other comments on it. I would like I would like to combine them two jobs financial and uh Mrs. Jeff
I think is save considerable money that way. >> What do you mean combined? >> Because the financial job But would you just add the 0.5 to Mel's
time and not do the finance one or you would pardon >> when you say combined they're two different pay rates. So, >> well, there's two different two different jobs. You know, they if we're budgeting is
they're expecting you're expecting to uh roll the hours of Melissa's job to full-time and then you're you're looking at uh putting on a half-time financial person.
>> Melissa doesn't want to do that. She doesn't want those responsibilities. >> I I feel like just a clarification, the reason that the job I'm doing right now as the administrative assistant needs to go full-time is because that position actually requires that the financial
work that needs to happen is outside of that. So combining the two doesn't really benefit the city in workload and or savings in my opinion. Who's carrying the financial workload
right now? >> We're spreading that across staff members. >> Four of us as much as we are capable of doing it. >> So you're saying it's impossible to eliminate that financial position and we don't have anybody in yet?
>> And it's unreasonable. >> It's impossible. We could just cut everything out of the budget. >> It's all possible. But it's not reasonable or feasible. We are a growing city. It's something that we need. We've needed for since I started here. It was
planned for when I first got hired on. It was in the budget and got cut for whatever reason. And again, this is something the city desperately needs. And if we've been through a forensic audit, we've got problems with a regular audit, we've got problems with finances,
the fire department complains about finances. So cutting a financial position just doesn't seem responsible. Well, it's also just adding another body that there is to the city too, which is an overhead that's going to be carried for many years going forward. >> Correct.
>> And you know, um, posting and seeing what would come up is is again way to to do that and see if it it wouldn't work out that way, you know, to find that person that would be happy to do that, you know. >> So, are we firing Melvin? I see.
>> Well, and and we we had a discussion in the budget meeting and I turned around and and I complimented Mel on how well she's doing. Absolutely. And I says, "Why don't you you do that?" Because I I thought she's doing a wonderful job. And she said, "No." So, but I did compliment
her exactly on how well she's been doing the stuff to go along with it. And I think that when you got hired, Jason, you were supposed to be the financial person that there is behind it. Okay. I think that was your job description. That was not my job description. >> It was on your title.
>> Yeah. Finance and I knew part of finance. >> Basian job description was to oversee financials. >> Overseeing and doing it is two different things. >> It's clearly in three different bullet points in his contract. He oversees
administrative. He oversees financials. Um >> well something we need staff. >> Something's got to give because we're >> You're right. It does have putting on three extra staff. You're add you're adding the financial person, you're adding a public works person and and then summer health on top
of it. I think some something's got to give summer help or something's got to go. >> We have people will leave because there's there's too much work. We have we have five we have five public works people on staff. We all know how to operate them
more >> and we got 200 homes that are coming on something. >> Couple years not this year. >> That's a couple years. >> Couple years. I see the permit thing. Yeah. The permits were way up in 24, but we put in how many how many hundred
water meters? That's why the permits were so high in 2024. Sure. It's growth, >> you know, and that's why they're back down back down to back in the ballpark again with what the other years have. >> We're going to have that growth next year in the next couple years.
>> So, which one would you cut? >> But they've doubled 22 is the thing. We've doubled the workload. We've increased the workload and we have the city has not increased the staff to be able to cover the workload. And so we are at this breaking point, tipping
point, whatever you want to call it, where we've seen so much turnover in this city. Nobody can keep track of things anymore because we've gone through how many city clerks and administrators and deputy clerks and and office staff because there's just so much turnover. There's
so much stress and and burden on these positions. It's unmanageable for people to and unrealistic for them to continually work at these rates. And so that's why we are asking and have been asking for as a city to have the support from council that we need that we see
because we're here day in and day out doing the work. We know what we need here in this office to be successful and be the best that we can for these residents. And so when we bring this, we're not bringing it light-hearted like we just want to spend people's money. We see the need and we see what needs to be
here and we're asking for that support. And so to keep coming back to this cut everything down and just keep doing it as you have been. This is kicking the can down the road, which they've done for the last, I don't know, five years at least, and it's not gotten the city anywhere good.
>> Well, as a a thought, you know, how about if we turned around and subcontracted that out and see how many hours a week that the subcontractor would be using to see if it's worthwhile
as a full-time position or not? because they're going to want a set number of hours each week as part of a contract and you're going to be paying twice, three times the rate you would a city employee. >> But if they can get done with it in 20 hours or 15 hours instead of 40,
>> if we have somebody we're trying to teach a system to and then they turn over and, you know, leave or we get somebody else we got to work with within that company. I mean, there's there's so much back end on that that it does not make any sense to me. Well, I remember when we bought that BSNA program and we
talked about it and there were three different options that was about an $80,000 most expensive option. And the idea behind that was that that's going to take care of the person that there is behind it to be able to >> take care of the person. That was never the idea behind it. It was the idea of
that's a tool for us to use to do our jobs better and more efficient. It doesn't replace a person. Well, you're clear. >> It allows us to do this better. >> There's not a person there right now. >> I know there's not. And we're trying to do the best we can, but we need a person there.
>> But we do. We know how well the BSNA program is actually working right now. >> Ask the staff. It's phenomenal. >> Well, then maybe we don't need a full-time person. Just to piggyback off of Jason's comment about how we got here and our kicking of
the can down the road, I just want to make one single comment about the the admin assistant position going from the full from the part-time to the full-time. This position was previously the deputy clerk position that council wanted to save money and cut back to
part-time and renamed it administrative assistant. What used to be in that office was a city clerk and a deputy clerk and they were full-time. So, we kicked the can down the road and we wanted to save a few dollars. We made it part-time and we changed the description so we could save money. And now we're
trying to put the hours back in. It doesn't need a new title. It's worthy of the full-time position. There's an extreme amount of financial work that needs to happen. the skill for the people that are in the office for that work
either need we need training or we need supplemental help or we need another body. It's that's just how it is. So it's it's got to be training, it's got to be additional skill or it's got to be another body. add that if the when the election years
come, I'm not going to be able to do the full accounting job that I'm doing right now. I'm going to be very torn with my hours to election services. So, I worry that
that'll be difficult. >> So, Jim, so in your time on council, how many times have we talked about transparency for finances? That's a hot topic. I think we don't have this. >> So, if we don't have a person dedicated
to bring that to light, I think we're going to continue to struggle. I think they can also help with managing the message out for residents to understand where we're spending money >> and we we really don't have access to that now. So, the transparency really
isn't there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree. >> I'm sorry. How do you We are transparent with everything. What are we not That's an accusation I disagree with. >> I think it's I think it's more on like where to me it's more from a resident
perspective like what am I getting right? We know but if you probably ask anyone in the audience they're like you know even where where's my money going to for taxes. I think we just have to do a better job of here's where we're spending it and not in 300page
agendas. No one's going to look at that. you look at the budget, an eight page budget, see exactly where it's spending. So, I would take that as to uh improve a message about >> putting together, you know, PR side of things of how it's being spent. Sure. That's how I interpret that in my
>> I think I think residents would appreciate kind of the narrative around it because they're not going to spend time one listening to city council and or probably factf finding. So they're probably falling and asking, >> which I think we've done significantly better this year than previous years
>> as we've taken in that information and those comments from citizens, council, from all involved to improve that message. But again, that's something we're having that finance person is able to put all that information together and put it out there. >> Yep. Yep. Someone needs to own it.
>> There's so much more that can be done. And I agree because I can go through and pick a dozen cities from across the state and look at what they're doing for their financial audit reports and it's nowhere near what we're doing but they have the staffing person to do it. So
>> I agree like it's as we discussed it quite a few times. It's well 14 hours of discussions on and a lot of it on that. So I'm happy with where it's at right now.
I would agree with that too. I think our 100 funds is is it's what we need for going forward and do anything less would be some takeaways for our staff as well as for our citizens as well. what their
expectations are of city hall, how efficient they can run or can't run. Yes, it's it's tax dollars, but at the same time having the staff now that help us responding to developers and growth and
density. And I know that's a bad word in some circles, but it's what it's going to take to pay for the sewer plant and not burden the people that stay here that we don't get the growth. Then everybody will be burdened with that because that was not the purpose
uh for having the for building the plant is to build the plant. our proximity Rochester. No, I don't know what percent 70% works in Mayo or Rochester and I think that's we offer alternative and we
are in a great position to do that. I think that's votes well for the city and growth comes with city. We see that happening in with the condos coming on new businesses over Casey's the downtown restaurant.
It's it's all good stuff. and to stick our head in the ground and say, "No, we're not going to grow. We're not going to hire people." That's just one. It's not very forward thinking. It's not strategic. It's just steady as she goes.
And that's what the citizens don't need. And your go your vote reflects that, that's fine. But >> it's a voice vote. No, it's not. That is resolution. >> Resolution, >> right? >> Oh, voice. Yeah. Yeah. I thought it was just
>> So, any more comments? >> Make a voice, please. >> Give me one second. I'm up the number so I can >> Oh, sure. >> online shop then. Just kidding. I'm just kidding. >> You can see it in the window. Amazon
>> Octopus away all day. >> My kids have been >> skating every single night. >> We needed ours to level out like nasty wet. So I'll be to like seep
out and like do some selfleing >> late this year with that name. I don't know. >> Okay. So the updated numbers that we will put into the budget um under the resolution the expenditure revenues will
be at 2,172,423. Same with the expenditures. And then further down where it says the general fund levy, that will be 1,634,591. The bond 306 payment will stay the same at 31,500
and the total levy will be reduced to 1,666,91. 1,661. >> 1,66691. >> That's the 43 17.9 >> that is. Yeah. The tax rate will be 43.7
with a decrease from last year of 1.1%. And the levy will be down to 17.9. Well, all in all, that's that stuff in the in the budget for this year. We shouldn't have to, you
know, the with the the salaries in there and the the the numbers for the streets and roads and the numbers for the CIP fund. We shouldn't have to increase that next year because that's already in the
budget from this year. Those should those should stay level. They still get the same year. >> They still get the same funding. They left them level. >> They're going to have that huge tax increase next year. >> Huge tax increase next year. If it's
level, >> we don't know what's going to come with the truth and taxation for that for property values next year either. Well, they they don't assess properties every year. It's like every second or third year they come around and say it's
worth more than that on. >> All right. Ready? >> Ready for voice? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Mayor I course. >> Hi. >> Councelor Phillips. >> Hey. >> Councelor Pentagrass. >> Hey. >> Councelor Spring. Hi. >> Councelor Riceer. Hi. Last item is a
resolution 25-30 resolution carried over use 2025 budgets for a wage study. I guess that's right up to 20,000 this one. >> That one didn't give
that new one. Oh, that's in that packet. >> That one. >> It's a pay equity. >> Yeah. So, this is for the the pay equity we've talked about multiple times this year. um having that study done um this
will be a huge benefit to the city because part of this usually is um will get us a step pro step program put in place for all positions grade step scale. So that'll take out a lot of work
um when it comes to salaries and things like that each year. Um and it will give good guidance for new positions or anything like that as we have turnover or anything um moving forward. >> Do we know what that number is yet coming forward >> for? What
>> do we know what that number is that we're carrying forward yet? >> We won't know that till after the end of the year. >> Yeah, that won't be till the end of the year. But this is >> bring resolution carry. >> Yeah, this is to carry x amount of dollars over to >> We don't know the number. No, we don't
know the total number. No, >> approximately 40. >> This is this is just a specific amount for the wage study to pay for the wage study. So, we can allocate those expenses now to pay for it in 2026. We have based in the we put the
>> 20,000 >> up to 20 >> up to >> up to 20 first air. >> I got a question. How long is that wage study good for? um usually a while. But Mike, you might be able to speak to this because one of
them is from your um company, the wage study, how long they're good for. I know they're immediate right away. And then there's uh usually an offer to yearly to look at it for, you know, minimal cost just to make sure that everything is there's any state laws that have changed or anything like that that needs to be
updated >> because once we do it, it's it's a maintenance thing. And then I don't know when a good time is to do a complete redo of it. >> I thought we had done one in 2022. Didn't we do one that time around? I'm just trying to think.
>> And I'm not I'm just questioning if we spend it. Is it how many years is it good for? >> They're they're good for a while. Mike, >> I'd say a couple. >> I don't know. I'm looking it up. There's different timelines um for different types of studies. So I'm not exactly
sure. I know from the administrators I've talked with, sorry not to interrupt you, Mike, there. >> Go ahead. >> Um, like I said, once you get it in place, the maintenance is key. As long as you're doing kind of yearly maintenance where they look at it a little bit and go, "Yep, okay, everything was good. There haven't been any Minnesota law changes, you know,
everything's fine." Um, 5 10 years, you may do like a market study again depending on the position. you can kind of pick and choose like you know okay you know it's been 5 years the market has completely changed for you know a water sewer operator we need to look at what they're offering now if we're
coming in right or we need to adjust this >> you know what that wage study is going to cost >> up to 20 is what what was budgeted right up to >> yeah so we're asking for up to 20 um it varies depending on the company you use and I presented some of these last year >> last February
>> um yeah last February um it depends from the company you use and what services you want out of it. Um I had one from DDA and then one from um Flity and Hood. I think Flity and Hood was more encompassing. They offered a lot more. Um was still under that 20,000 I think
total but it really just depends on the company and what you're asking for them to do because there's a lot of things they can include as extras which are I think great to have but they're not necessarily required. If we do a wage study and we find we're overpaying
people, are they going to take a a decrease in salary? I mean, >> no, but that's what that's one of those ones where you can look at that and go, okay, >> it's it's I got to ask. It's both sides of the coin, right? You know, everybody thinks we're underpaid. Maybe we're not compared to other.
>> No, absolutely. But that's where you can look at that and go that's where it comes into play when you do your salary stuff later is we know you're three steps ahead of where you know the salary study says you may not get those additional you may get your cola but you may not get additional or
>> I'm just I'm just asking I mean >> yeah and so that's where having that is going to be a huge benefit to the city to really kind of help determine where they're at. On top of that, we're going to be a little late to the game, but we do have due at the end of January the study for the state to make sure we're
on par with our pay stuff. Um, now with that, that is a very surface level. What's the position? Here's the score for that. Are you male or female in that position? Here's the score for that. This is your pay. There's the score for that. And they throw it into their big
equation. um it definitely does not replace doing a pay study by any means. Um so that's why I think using these funds is going to be important um to be able to do that and actually do that wage study, get it professionally done and then continue to maintain it over
the years so that we can eliminate a lot of questions and headaches, things like that. >> I see that you know we're using un unused dollars from LA from this year. But boy, sure, everybody sure raised cane with me last year wanting to bring up bring ahead the snow plow money that
we didn't use the year before. I'm just just pointing the fact out that >> we had we had $49,000 left in our >> in our snow plow and ice removal fund from 2024 and everybody had a fit when I wanted to
use some of that to bring to 2025. >> I think we did learn something new in the review that we had. Um, Andrew Forilly look at uh that was in the memo from last uh the last budget workshop just making clarifications on what happens to unused budget dollars at the
end of the year uh and how we roll them over and the suggestion was if we want to roll over or use dollars that we would do that by resolution which is that that's what this is. Uh we did identify those unused dollars. Um, we certainly don't want the tax payers
taxpayers to have to pay additional dollars in 2026. This was part of the levy from the 2025 budget residents have already paid for. Um, we we should apply those dollars versus next you're saying we want to do a a pay study and have to come up with the money again.
>> Well, it's not just for the study. So, I mean, let's say that there's $100,000 left over. >> This is only up to 20. Where's the other 80 go? That's why I wanted >> and that's what we want to know where where that's at and what's >> so like I said we did learn something new with wartily. There is another way
to manage it manage those unused dollars. We certainly look into that as we move through 2026 and try to identify better to use them where to apply them. How to carry them? What does that mean? What does that mean
to the the financial health of the city? >> Comments about the >> We're not sure. This is the first time we've ever done it because we were told that we could legally can do it. >> So, we just need a resolution so we know where the money is going from and going to. >> Yeah,
>> we can do it. We need formal resolution. >> So, but we can do that after we know what the monies are at the end. this I mean I'm not talking about the study >> because that's that's where I'm not sure because this is we're allocating funds from this year during this fiscal year
to use in next fiscal year once we get into next fiscal year it's not so much we can allocate they end up going into a reserve a general fund reserve is my understanding from talking with Andrew on that correct me if I'm wrong here where they just sit in the city as we
have these extra reserve funds that are weren't used but they're just here they're not necessarily allocated for something one way or another. So >> allocate you need to allocate before end of year. >> Yeah. No, I I was just I'm with you off of that. I was just
>> like I said last year 2024 I was eight months in. I this is not something I was familiar with. So answer your you know. >> So so when we bring this forward you know we're talking about using part of that for wage study. Do we need do we need a resolution anytime we spend a
portion of that? So everybody understands where it's going. >> Good documentation. >> We should get some kind of documentation where it's going. >> Well, we'll have something like when they vote to approve who's doing the wage study, we know it's coming and it'll be on there. We don't the rest of the >> talk about I'm talk about the with the
remainder. >> So this city, >> we do something in the future with >> this meeting is the last city council meeting unless you wanted to have a special meeting before the end of the year. uh that this type of resolution for carryover dollars could could be approved. As soon as we get into
January, we cannot be taking 2025 to apply to 2026. >> Unfortunate we didn't learn about this new rule until nearly the end of the year. Um but like I said, it's something we can look at over the period of next year to talk about how do we use unused
dollars. >> So they go into a reserve fund. You see >> just there. It goes back into the cash operating balance. Yeah. >> For the city. >> I like to think this is not going to be a new standard operating procedure because everybody could be use their
budget in the budget year. Correct. >> And this shouldn't be a >> and this this money comes from leftover funds from salaries for the two positions that weren't utilized. And I think it's appropriate to use salary funds to pay for a wage study. I wouldn't ask this for, you know,
something else outside of that. >> And I'm not >> Yeah. I'm just making clarify like you know so this is not a >> oh let's not spend anything at the end of the year let's just carry it over like that's not what we're doing and that's what we don't want to happen because the taxpayers you know we asked for the money from the taxpayers for
certain reasons we should be using those >> budgets up to zero for those reasons because that's what we asked for them. So really every year the minimal there should be minimal carryover. >> So Okay. Okay, >> that makes sense.
>> Because >> any other comments say none. Let's do a voice vote. >> Mayor Ihor. >> Hi. >> Councelor Phillips. >> Hi. >> Councelor Pentigrass. >> Hi. >> Councelor Spring. >> Hi. >> Councelor Riceer. >> Hi.
>> Make a motion we approve consent agenda. We'll >> second it. Any comments, questions? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos.
>> Motion to adjourn. >> Second. Favor say I. >> I. I. >> Have a merry Christmas. 9:00. Come on.
>> Two hours better than last year. >> I'm so proud. >> It's because of the 11:00 meetings a month ago. >> It's crazy. >> Yeah, you never know. sisters. around. Um would it be reasonable to you
either January, February, March look at unused 25 fonts where >> what we ended Down.