This conference will now be recorded. We'll start the pledge of allegiance. work is in your packet for that. I just forgot to put it on the agenda and my and my memo, but there's a memo in there from Miles and and uh and the resolution
as well. >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as amended. >> I'll second. >> Any further discussions? All in favor? >> I oppose. Passes 5 0. Uh we'll open the public comment portion. Individuals may
address the city council about any items of concern. Speakers must state their name and limit the remarks to three minutes. Uh since we have uh one topic, we'll address we'll let you do public comments when we get to the uh I assume
it's the uh what is it called? The public safety dollars. So, we'll let a couple of you talk if you want during that time. Uh, any other public comments other than the safety dollars? >> Yes, Bob.
>> I'll make a comment. Um, this might be a mute point because, uh, I appreciate talking to you last night, mayor. Uh, and then I talked to Brian this morning and he called this afternoon. And, um, we're in property owners. I'm Bob Holly
by the way uh from Zroa. We are property owners between Main Street and the new Keller Barton development. This thing does echo, doesn't it? But anyway, um I think the existing residents and property owners have come
to the realization that that development is a good thing that uh it's good for the residents that'll live there. long-term benefits I think for the for the community. You know, with these types of developments, I know it's difficult to balance u existing
residents concerns versus the developers concerns. So, I appreciate uh the work you do to to do that. I guess the major concern of the existing property owners has been to ensure that public parking remains uh at a level consistent with
what has existed in the past. And um no matter what the parking arrangements have been in the alley behind the properties and where the new development is going to go, I think it's been at least over 50 years that there's been
plenty of parking back there and it's been utilized. It's been mostly on city property. And I just learned last night that there's a little piece of property the city owns that's going to be sold to Keller Bartman, which is probably the wise decision. Um, however, it's the
only uh major factor that gives us any clout with determining how much public public parking is will be available. So, I do appreciate the fact that uh Brian assured me today that it will be in the
development agreement and mayor you said that last night. Um, as long as that is a permanent uh u statement in there that those new parking spaces along the alley up against the Keller Bartman property,
which will now be their property 100%. uh as long as that remains open to the public, I think we'll be satisfied. But I just uh wanted to make my my concerns known publicly and I appreciate again
the work that's being done uh to keep it keep the parking available back there. Um given the fact that they are using public parking to make this development happen, they needed the extra parking. So, I think it's the least they can do
is to allow that to uh proceed as you're talking about to allow public parking on their private land. So, uh that's all I have to say tonight. I appreciate what you're doing to make that happen. >> Thanks for the comments, Bob. I know him
and I talked last night and he talked to Brian and Brian and I talked about the same issue. uh that we will uh do our darnest and make sure that it does stay public parking where it doesn't just designate it just for that apartment complex. So I know that's been a concern
uh kind of when it started. So um and that's always been part of it that was an understanding from the beginning that that would remain public parking and it would be in the developers agreement. I talked to our city attorney Mike Flity this afternoon after talking to Bob and uh you know we're going to button it up
in several different areas u the development agreement it'll say it on the site plan um so it's been agreed to it's just a matter of the the documentation um and it'll be recorded with the property so it'll always go with the property new owner can't come in and say hey we're going to designate
these parking spots it'll be we're going to we're going to make sure it's no question So >> yeah, appreciate your comments, Bob. >> Thanks, Bob. Any more public comments? I will close the public comment portion
and let's jump to the consent agenda. All items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine by council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless council member requests in which case the item were removed from
the consent agenda be considered in the normal sequence on the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> I'll second that. >> Any further discussions? All in favor? I
>> oppose. Passes 5 0. Uh counts payable. Kevin. >> Nice here. We're coming to the end of the year. Uh one just to bring reference to the library boiler work. Uh the replacement of the boiler. I hear that
was successful. I'm glad to see that the library is set for hopefully another 50 years of no problems with that. Otherwise, everything else looks uh very routine. I would make a motion to approve the accounts payable and a total of 53,924.
>> I'll second that. >> Any other f further discussions on accounts payable? >> All in favor? I oppose. passes 5 0. Uh let's jump down to unfinished business 7A resolution 202539 approving final
budget and levy uh collectible in 2026. Kimberly, you got a little slideshow for >> Oh yeah, hang on closer because as I get I'm blinder. So uh I always do a little bit of a slideshow for you just to see what some of the trends that are going on in the city. And the first one is the
population trend. Um, and that just shows our population right now. It's always a year behind with the demographer. So, our population right now is at 3,993 according to the demographer. I realize that there's a little bit of a discrepancy between different sources
that some say we're over 4,000, some say we're there. So, we've grown about 800 people since 2008. So, next slide, please. Okay. These are our new residential uh starts from 2010 to
2025. These are the number of single family homes pretty much that have started. Uh last year had a good year. We had 20 uh 20 units started. This year we've got 14. A little bit of that was affected by some of the changes in interest rates and some of the uncertainty with financing. Um but we've got some good starts. Our lots are
filling up. We're seeing good commercial market or good residential market growth which in a turn will increase our marketable tax base which spreads the tax burden of the city out a little further. >> We've got some new house starts up on the the ninth street the Champa
>> uh area. Um and then also we're looking for more next year. Um the the Highland 7th is slated to move forward. That's to be about 38 lots I think. Uh plus the rates are coming down. So hopefully hopefully this will kick up >> and everything the lag with taxes. So it
gets done this year, it gets assessed. It's always like about 18 months till it actually hits the tax ro. So it takes a while for these things to to get on board and get on for the value. >> Next slide, please. >> Did it go? >> No, there you go. The commercial market
value. Look at that there. Big change from uh 2020 and 21. That was pretty much the DFA expansion, which was a very large expansion. Again, increased the tax taxable market base quite a bit. Um, this year we've had most of our projects have been smaller remodeling projects.
Uh, haven't really had any big construction projects coming in. Um, we'll see what comes up. Hopefully, we can get some more going on. New um more industrial and commercial tax base we get, the better it is. This is this actually ties a little bit
into our um uh our fee schedule that we're going to be presenting, but I always like to give us a picture of where we're at with our water and sewer rates. Uh Miranda calls and she gets the average sewer rate and and water rate for 1,000 gallons for uh 1,000 gallons,
less than 1,000 gallons, 1,000 gallons, and 4,000 gallons. Um as you can see how we are here. She's got a comparison between the years and uh or comparison between the amounts. So, you can see that we are not the lowest rate, but we are second lowest in the area. Not that
we're trying to throw our area cities under the bus. Everybody's got their own stuff that they're doing, their own things that um are coming into play. I we don't have a MEPA on there, but I know they have a new plant coming online and they'll have bonding and things like that within their rates. We've been steadily increasing our rates with water
and sewer because we're preparing for the sanitary district and we're hoping to put aside some money so that we can defay some of the costs that we will be responsible for for the bonding of the project. We are also hoping to get uh much more federal and state uh aid to do
that project. It's a really good project. Um one discharge into the river instead of four. Um and it's less cost of operation. So, we're hoping going forward we will have a successful sanitary district. And this is our levies. So, I have them
from 2013 to 202026. Uh, originally when I did the levy for 2026, we had the pool bonding on. We decided that the pool bonding or the pool bid was too high. We pulled that off. So, originally we had an increase in 2026 going forward of 14.39%
or 14.89%. Now, that does not mean your taxes for the city are going to go up 14.89%. It just means the levy amount is uh actually we were able to remove that this year because that did not pass. It brought our levy increase down to 8.39%.
Um again, I always talk about the how your tax bill comes. A lot of people think when they pay their taxes say I'll just give my example because everybody's tax bill is public record. I could go and look every single one of your houses up on the county and see what you pay for taxes. And my tax bill is right
around $4,000. Now, I don't pay $4,000 to the city. I pay some to the city, some to the county, and some to the school. Usually, it's about a third, a third, a third. So, from what I am guessing, your tax bills per one $100,000 worth of value are going to increase
fairly slightly overall. >> All right, >> that's all I've got. Okay. So, as we've reviewed the budget a zillion times, I know that you guys are so excited to be done with it for a few months before we have to start all over again. Um the
major drivers in our budget this year were increase in um medical insurance wage study wages because we had to adjust wages with uh union contacts as well as just our our regular wage studies valuing our wages against other
cities in our area at similar size. Also we have an increase proposed of an officer increase. We've increased some of our capital equipment set aides. Um we had to increase some subscription costs. As we know the uh most of our technical things whether that be
equipment or computers they're going to subscription services. So that's increasing our sub subscription costs. We have another increase that we'll be talking about later which is we will uh our current auditor is retire has retired and we are going to be bringing a new auditor on board which also is an
increase of about not quite double but pretty significant increase in that. Um 1% of a levy increase is approximately last about $28,000 from last year. So anything that raises a levy $28,000 if everything else
stays the same that's going to bring the levy up a percent. and $28,000 unfortunately doesn't go very far anymore as we know with equipment and all these things. So you will see that being reflected in there as well. >> Thank you. >> Thanks again. Thanks for all your work
on the budget and council. Any questions, concerns on the budget levy? I know we've hammered it out for the last three, four months and I think we've had two or three uh work sessions on it and kind of know where we're at. I know there's been some
questions on some of the topics. Not easy questions, but questions. Please make a motion. I'll make a motion to >> second. Any further discussions? I will do a roll call. Bob,
>> hi. >> Joan, hi. >> Uh Kevin, hi. >> Fred, hi. >> And I passes 5 0. Thanks Kim and city staff for uh working on that budget and we'll be back at it in about 3 months. Uh 7B 2026 fee schedule discussion and
set public hearing. Brian, >> yes, that time of year too uh to work on the fee schedule. Um, I gave you some highlights on here. Um, I can kind of run through those. I do have a little bit more information on the edible cannabonoid license. Um, we're not
allowed to collect anything for that and we're not allowed to license them. Um, when we when we went did the original ordinance, we were still we still had the the edibles and the low potency. Um, somewhere along the line, it changed once they tweaked the law and now the
county has all of it. Uh, nobody told us. Uh, didn't didn't hear anything. Um, so we do we have approved a few already. Uh, we'll have to refund some dollars. Um, but I'll be sending a letter and getting together with all of our um the retail sales that are that are doing
this just to let them know, hey, you have to contact the office of uh cannabis management and then and then Goodyu County to to get licensed. We're we're out of it. We're out of the enforcement and everything on it. So, um, so that fee, uh, rather than being 125 is going to go away completely off
of here. Um, been a lot of discussion about manual water meter reading. Um, we putting in new water meters and the readers are are cloud-based basically and and they read
on an RF uh, very little, less than a second a day total. Uh, but some people have concerns with that. Uh so we've uh talked about allowing um um man leaving the manual ones or putting a manual one on the outside of
the house or different options. Um it's not a good idea. Uh, but it's something we've considered and and we need to have a some sort of a fee to cover the cost to to uh send someone out there with a truck, get out, go read it, bring it
back here to Miranda, have Miranda do the work to manually put it in. And uh um so so you know, we want to be responsible with that fee. Um, I think other utilities, Excel and Minnesota Energy or Excel charges a lot less for a
manual read, but they've got a lot more resources than a a city government who runs on taxpayer dollars. So, um, we're looking at an an hour for uh for the truck, the person to go out there, all of that, and then for the adding it in
manually and all that. So, two hours uh which equates to I'm proposing $68 a month if you want to opt out of uh the uh the cloud-based reading. Jeff or Kim, if you want to add anything to that or
did I explain it? Okay. Um now, we're still kicking it around. You know, we need council to consider whether or not we're truly going to allow people to opt out. Other communities don't allow that. said, "Nope, we're going to do this because, you know, uh they read more accurate. We're going to replace
every meter no matter what. The meters do not emit any RF. Those will be replaced no matter what. That's got nothing to do with this fee, but if we have to meet read it manually, this is the fee. Um water sewer rates increase by 4%. All costs are going up. We got to
keep up. um number of adjustments to the building mechanical plumbing code permit fee schedule that comes through safe built our um our building inspector. Um, you know, it's just again cost costs go
up and uh there is a Yeah, I think that's it. Is anything else we want to talk about on the fee schedule, Kim or or Jeff or anybody else or council? >> The potentially dangerous.
>> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I forgot to mention those. Um, yeah, those are something those are ones that are being discussed still by the code committee. Um, um, but I wanted to get them on here for consideration. Anything that we're going
to consider, I want on here um, you know, going into the public hearing. So, they may or may not happen. um before we have the public hearing on January 8th, um they'll have another code committee meeting and we'll so we'll know some more whether or not this is going to be
on there or not on there on what that might look like. Um yeah, the other adjustment I just took the building permit fees off of the top part here, you know, because that's all in the in the the big schedule below.
>> Any more questions on the uh fees? So, we are going to set a public hearing for January 8th at 6:05. So, I just need a motion and a second for that. >> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second. >> Any further discussions? All in favor? I oppose. Passes 500. Thanks, Brian. Um, uh, 7C, allocations of public safety dollars. We will have Kim and or Brian
give a little bit on that. probably Brian first, then maybe Kim. >> I'll start. >> We'll open it up to the public comments. Give a couple public comments on that and then uh >> see what council's wishes are. >> Yeah, I'll start it off. We we've discussed this many times. Um this is
the the one time $300 million public safety uh aid that went out to uh cities, counties, tribal governments, and and townships depending on the size of the townships. Uh townships didn't all get the money. It went to the county in a lot of cases. Um but yeah um our
share of that is 165,458. Uh we've had I don't know several discussions and work sessions and I think in council meeting as well about how to allocate those dollars. Kim and I have done a lot of work on that a lot of thinking as well on what to propose to
the council. Uh I'll let Kim kind of give the methodology. You know what we kept coming back to um in in discussions amongst ourselves, staff and council um was that a u a percentage of budget
based allocation um is uh in our view uh in staff's view the most equitable way to to allocate these dollars. But >> you have this to put up in the screen. >> Oh yeah, sorry. Um and Kim can walk through this methodology. She's our numbers person. So,
>> all right. So, you know, again, it's very complex how we do it. And I I to be honest, I really feel like the state dropped the ball on this because I don't think the township should not have gotten their money. But if you were a township with a population under 10,000, they gave your money to the county and the county distributed it whichever way
they chose. Now, there were specific uses they could be used for. It's all outlined under the Minnesota Department of Revenue site. Um, it can't be used for buildings. It it can be used for staffing. It can be used for equipment. It can be used for various uses within
it. Um there are either some health there's even some health and safety things that you can do. Of course, we don't have a a health and safety department. So, um for me, how I looked at it, I looked at what we spend because I'm always thinking about how things affect the taxpayers. So, I took how
much we spend on each of our emergency per um departments. The police department, we fully own. The city of Zimroda funds all of the police department. Our fire department is on a joint powers board with uh four townships and our ambulance is also in a
joint powers thing. Uh ambulance charges a straight per capita dues for their service. uh the fireboard charges. We have a a formula that we use based on per capita uh land I can't even remember because we did some changes in it recently so I apologize but val you know
uh >> land area >> land area market value there it's all weighted and it that's how we come up with our dues um but the way that we did do the dues for the fire board was at the time of our discussion the city said that we would be responsible for up to
52% of the dues we are not we aren't there yet we don't come to 52 I think we're at 50.7 maybe. Um, but we pay 52% of the dues for the fireboard, which is around next
year's budgeted amount is uh $91,972. The uh ambulance, I am just guessing cuz I haven't quite got the bill, but we're I'm believing our bill would be $80,000. And our police costs with staffing, vehicles, insurance, all those things.
that budget is $954,454. So for me, math person, I just took it, added it all together, got a total of $1,126,426. And then I figured out what percentage each emergency service person or department took of that. So if you
divide that out, the uh police department would be 84.73%, the fire would be 8.16%. the ambulance would be 7.10%. And then I times those percentages by the $165,458
of public safety money we got, which gives the police department, if you would choose to do that, $119,173.7, the uh fire department $13,5955, and the ambulance department $11,751. Uh whatever you decide, however you guys decide to split this up, anything that
we would give to the entities, no matter what would we would earmark I would suggest that you earmark it for equipment, which I think any of them would be happy to use for any equipment, whatever monies they get. Um you don't have to spend it right away. It can sit
your choice right this now. You could decide not to split this money up today if you want to because there's no deadline on spending it. But I feel that it's there and I personally feel that it would be a good thing to make a determination or to start really kicking the ball around a determination. Nothing
has to be decided tonight. But it's a really good discussion to have. Again, I I just did it as numbers. I don't have any it's not a valuation of saying one service is worth more than the other. I am just saying if you weight it within our budget and the cost that it has, this is the way it works out. So you
guys can discuss it and feedback on it and anything you want to do. >> And I do want to know well you notice on here that yeah there was some allocated for a police use already. That's why it's 119 for uh for the police. But um
it should be noted that this is not area tax dollars. This is a per capita city taxpayer give back of some money to to to to use on on public safety. Um no public safety entity is any more important than any
other. Um it's just a matter of we have to be cognizant of the budget um the different budget areas and the breakout um you know seems to be in our opinion seems to be responsible. Um, everybody doesn't have to agree for sure. Um, we
pass the information along. Council can debate it. Um, but yeah, that's that's that's how we got here and we've had it for a while. So, yeah, we'd kind of like to do something. We've been calling the carpet a couple of times by a particular township um at a fireboard meeting. So,
um, for not doing anything with it yet. Uh, so so I kind of kicked it back in front of the council again. >> Perfect. Thanks, Kim and Brian, for the information. Uh, I assume John wants to speak first and then we'll do maybe a couple other people if they want
comments on it and then we'll talk it uh amongst the council, see what we want to do. >> Pass this week. >> Uh, good evening, mayor and members of the city council. My name is John Olsen. I serve as administrative chief of the
Zimroto Fire Department. I'm here tonight to follow up on my February 2024 request regarding the $165,458 the city received in state public safety aid. In our previous discussions, I
proposed an equal three-way split of $55,152 for police, fire, and EMS. This proposal was rooted in simple principle to the citizens we serve. These three pillars of public safety are equally vital. When
a resident calls for help, they don't value the responding agency based on the size of its annual budget. They value the life-saving service provided in that moment. Um, I understand there's been discussions about allocating these funds
prop proportionally based on the existing city budget. If this allocation is based strictly on budget size, it creates a fundamental inequity. To put this into perspective for the taxpayers, the city currently invests $248 per resident into the
police department, but only $24 per resident into the fire department and $21 into EMS. Our fire budget is lower because we are volunteer-led. We provide millions of dollars of sweat equity by not drawing a salary, which keeps the
city tax burden low. However, our equipment, gear, and training costs are not discounted. By tying aid to budget size, the city is inadvertently penalizing the very departments that save it the most money. I am frustrated by this proposal because
it suggests that our volunteer firefighters are less of a priority than their salaried counterparts. Under this model, for every dollar given to the fire department, the police department receives over 10. However, I'm here today to be a partner in this pro process, not an adversary. I'm
requesting that the safety dollars are split evenly among the three pillars of public safety, police, fire, and EMS. My goal is in to ensure that every tax dollar from the state aid is used to provide the highest level protection for the people of Zimroda.
Thank you. >> Perfect. Thanks, John. Anybody else want to speak on this matter? I will close the public portion. Council, we've had discussions. Uh I know we talked about work sessions. I got the
pleasure to uh talk to a fire department fire uh fire about it. Um what's everybody's take on it? I know work session we kind of discussed it. >> I still I understand the reason for dividing it up uh according percentages.
I I see that um I still feel that it uh a split seems appropriate. um just that it's extra dollars we did get from the state. Um I think it could be more
beneficial to all if it was split. That's my opinion. I see value. Oh, I see value in what John is saying and I also see like the tax burden on the citizens. I see value in that.
I don't know. But I totally get what John's saying and I totally get you know saying the citizens of the be it would be a hardship on them if we
don't but I see value in both situation because John's right oh you're coming to save my life that's your concern not what taxes you paid
towards them coming to save your life. So I get that >> my perspective is that the uh the taxpayer money from Zimroa residents that has been sent back essentially in layman's terms. So the the split should
go according to their already existing expenditures which is I view the most just and equitable way to deviate out in accordance with the percentages. >> Yeah, I just kind of see it as a bonus coming from there and allocated to
divided up and they have to kind of money to help these every that we got. So, I I lean towards the
>> uh I'm going to refer to Ratkkey because I know him a little bit personally, but him and I had a conversation the other day a little bit about taxpayers and as a B or as a resident, you're paying for all three of these
and we get extra money. So, it's some of the taxpayers are get have to pay extra for this money. So, I mean, do I agree with the split of 84,8? No. But I think it needs to be a lot
stronger towards the police department than the fire and the ambulance. Um, with the ambulance, we already pay a per capita. I think it's what 250 going to three. >> It's
1750 going. Is that >> Oh, is Okay. What am I? Which one am I thinking? Okay. >> It increase per year by >> Oh, that's what it was. Okay. >> So, I mean, I would I mean, I would have to lead leave lead towards Kevin that our taxpayers have already paid it. I
mean, it's unfortunate that that had to go to Goodyu County and they decide to put it right to the sheriff. Um, but I would be open to give a little more to the fire department of whatever that amount is. Um because I'm on the fire board and I understand equipment is
outrageous and that that is I mean just the turnout gear to spend what 100 grand and the the walkie-talkies and stuff like that. So is there a right answer? There's not. Um
can I just say as as far as the uh the city budget goes because we we have we own one of the departments. we have to completely fund one of the departments. Um the dollars um provide an opportunity to possibly lower the levy in some areas
uh over time uh if we allocate towards equipment, things like that if we don't spend on extra stuff. Not that there's anything extra. You don't need all the tools that they that they can get. But um there is an opportunity when we're working with our own budget that we can we can u lessen the tax burden uh to
local taxpayers uh with these dollars. Um that opportunity does not exist with with with fire and ambulance. Um which is fine. Um because I'm guessing that if we if we give more money to fire, we're probably not going to realize lower
dues. Um because there's a lot of equipment needs there. Um we have a lot of equipment needs within police, too. But those dollars, since we own the budget, we have the budget, we can infuse some dollars into equipment, possibly over time save a little bit of uh of
levy. uh you know could could that that's that's kind of our our theory on when we talk through this on this could be a benefit for the local taxpayers. It's their money coming back in one you know with something like this. You know
we're certainly willing to give dollars elsewhere but um >> and just to reiterate none of this money can be used for dues or allocations that that is not a use that is eligible under this program. So it would have to be equipment personnel. Um which
>> yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to just uh point out year to date the police department's done over 5,300 calls for service. The fire department looking at quick CAD datas, 92 with a third of those being township calls, not
city of Zro calls. Um, I would ask uh has the fire department gone to the the county board and asked for their share of the money that was allocated to the townships or are they only coming to the city uh for that money at this point?
>> I talked to one Can I answer? I talked to one >> township board member and they said the county spent it already. >> Yeah. Yeah. there's not an opportunity there because uh under a certain population the the money went to the to
the county. Um and I don't know 100% but I believe they spend it on on police uh things which the townships benefit from. So so there's a direct benefit for them that way too. But again that's the the county's budget. The county's dollars they spend
it on theirs their their budget. We're willing to send out some money that is not um ours. You know, we're just a a part of these uh joint powers, but we're willing to send dollars that way
>> or we're proposing. >> Brian, do you know the county um the county got the dollars and could divvy them up to the townships? Was there a percentage or was it based on population on what they would get? >> Well, they didn't. There was there was no divying up, but uh I know Goodyu
County got $925,541 >> and it was per capita. So, whatever your township per capita was, it was everything was per capita. >> Yeah. And I think they could do with it what they wanted to. But I I'm They had needs. They had sheriff needs. They, you know, that's where they put the dollars.
That's that's fine. You know, all the townships benefit from that. Is it a way to find per capita per township to find out what they may have gotten? >> And it's I'm just just thinking through if we're going to, you know, give more dollars, if we're not going to split it,
which I still like the idea of splitting it in thirds, but I'm just what those dollars might be. Just an idea. >> I'm just seeing if they broke it up at all. And that was statewide, right? So each
city got different amount per their capita. >> According to the department of revenue, they did not break it down um by town, but I'm I'm searching it. >> You can see the townships that did get money, but I don't think you can see
townships that didn't get money. >> Probably because it got lumped some lump to the county. Yep. Yep. And that's fine. I don't want to question they did what they did. Great. Um, >> right. >> You know, we're just trying to be
cognizant of our taxpayers because that's who we're in charge of, you know, that that's who look to to you guys. Um, and and and again, staff, you know, this is we work with numbers. We we look at levies. We look at, you know, how can we do this better? And and this was our our
thoughts on it. Right or wrong? Um, you know, by all means, whatever you think is best. Um, you guys are the decision makers. >> Not going to hurt my feelings if you go a different direction. >> You don't have to make decision, right?
>> We're just bringing this forward so you can start >> and we can get more information for you. If you want more information, we can you guys can talk about long or >> I I do think we need to to keep moving with this one because it's been a while. Um I would like to look at these numbers a
little bit more to see if if there's somewhere in between or if um where we just do thirds, which some talk about, some don't agree with. Um >> I don't know. Would you like me to um
figure see if I can get the township populations and work some of the numbers with the township populations and within our districts with a per capita because I might be able to work out something like that to give you a little bit more idea of what they would have gotten, >> you know, and and and I don't know where
that split would be, but it was just it just be interesting to see what that figure might be. >> Okay, let me see what I can find. I'll talk to um the guy Alan Lawmire at the county. See if I can get that split from him because it's a per capita. So if he
gives me the split of how many people are in there, that just gives you more information. >> Just a quick question for John. Um if we did go a third, what would the fire department plan? I mean, obviously the capital equipment, I mean, or do you have
something >> right now? >> Turn gear. I mean, what's kind of the thinking now on that? >> Roughly 15 air packs that are there's they took them to uh Clar's and they said that they're out of date or don't really make parts anymore for them
and so we're on borrowed time. I called Clary's today. A new air pack is $7,000 and our budget is low and we don't have that much capital. I try and apply for grants. Most big grants are 50/50
matching. So if we got the 50,000, I could we could earmark it for air packs or equipment. I could use that to apply for grants and hopefully turn it into a 100,000, which I mean we could go into the equipment room and spend
500,000 right now on stuff we need, not stuff we want, stuff we need. And so that's where I'm grateful for the consideration of 13,000 but I mean it's a drop in the
bucket and in my opinion we would save the tax dollar or taxpayers of Zimroa money because if we could get a 100,000 for air packs we don't have to increase our budget which would in turn fall back on the taxpayers.
So >> that's a good point. It would ease the the equipment budget. We've got the same type of equipment schedule with the fire >> that we do with uh well here with our budget. I just I mean if we're looking if I can
speak again I don't >> if we're looking at budget we have to take the salary out of the budget and look at only the equipment in my opinion >> for police
>> for police take their salary P out of it Medicare because we don't get that if we got that our budget would be through the roof and then our percentage would be higher. So, I mean, if you're looking at it that way, it's not apples to apples in my
mind. So, to move this forward, as much as I hate to push this off, I think uh we need a little more information before we make a decision. I mean, is that kind of where we're at? I mean, we've been sitting on it for two plus
years. What's another month or two? >> So, >> yeah, I would like a little bit more time to to kick through some scenarios. >> So, I mean, we have council on the 8th and the 22nd of January
and I would say uh February 5th. That' be enough to have discussion in another month. So, let's plan on doing that and uh let the firefighters know that uh we'll get more information and then January 5th
will at least of some of February we'll put it on that one. >> So, jot that down then February 5th council meeting we will figure out what we want to do and how we want to go. Does that sound fair?
John, that's what we'll do is uh February 5th, we will uh have more answers for us council, for you guys, whoever, and then we'll make a decision on the 5th. >> And I'm gone that day. No, I'm joking. >> Perfect. Thanks, John. Thanks, Fire
Department. >> Well spoken, John. Thank you. >> Uh let's jump to uh 7D 460th Street Maintenance Agreement. Brian, >> yes. I don't think we've got anybody in attendance from Rosco Township, but um
what we've got going there is we have an agreement that's been in place for well since 2011. Um and it hasn't changed uh costwise. We were paying $750 uh a year for the maintenance for half of 3/4 of a mile of a gravel road. Um
just get to it here. Um so they came uh proposing that uh an increase an increase in the amount um uh with the contract for the maintenance. Um they brought to me a Minnola uh township
increase that they had received on a road that Minola and Rosco share and I asked for the same type of of a breakout uh on this portion of the road. Um, and so they did and they brought this uh Jeff and and the guys looked it over and
we feel that the cost is um uh is there. It's right. It is what it is. Um, you know, they're they're actually looking for $1,500 rather than the 148026. Uh, Brian Hogan requested $1,500 a year. Uh, we don't think that's out of line.
Uh, I'll let Jeff talk here in a minute, too. But um but we we will be meeting them with them again to look at the body of the agreement. Um the cost portion we want to get set before the first of the year because need to get the payment out. U but we will look at the body of
the agreement and some u some some things that we'll tweak there with them as well. But Jeff, do you wanna want to chime in? Yeah, I guess all we're when looking into it with the amount of rock and stuff for that 3/4 of mile, we're just looking at some needing more
data when that stuff when the rock goes down that we are getting what's proposed is basically all we're looking into >> and that'll carry through to all the agreements that we have like this. Most of them was just paint. We don't ask for any u you know we trust we we it's not that we don't trust them but again we're
responsible for taxpayer dollars. So, um, you know, we're going to look at, uh, a little more followup on these agreements, say, "Okay, periodically, we're going to say, "All right, can you give us the receipts for this this work that was done?" You know, we just want to check, you know, some things get missed sometimes. Whoops. We didn't do
that portion of the road this year. Okay, fine. But, um, so those type of things, but that'll be part of the agreement. Um, we're in a we're ready to to ask you to approve the $1,500. is section on the west side of or west of
>> Grover Jackson that three quarters that way. >> And I guess I mean the receipts is not an issue. It's just some of the work is it getting done every four years. >> That's kind of what we want to make sure gets done. And a majority of it's the
gravel getting installed for that 3/4 of mile. I mean I don't know if we need the receipts. We just want proof that it's done cuz it sounds like it has not been getting done every four years. So that's kind of what we're questioning with the township.
>> Yeah. And they'll provide documentation. They they're they were a little quite a bit offended when I asked the question. Um well, rightfully so, but uh I assured them that no, this is not just this agreement. We're going to, you know, it's our responsibility to follow up on things as well. So, um, but as far as
this goes, um, the cost is is what it is and it's going to be there. Um, and we'll work on the rest of the the agreement and the rewarding some things in there, um, as we go. We're going to visit a Rosco Township board meeting and talk through some things as well. So,
>> and Jeeoff, it's in line what you're seeing costwise for >> stuff for that. Yep. And they actually are slightly for the rock. They are slightly cheaper than Minnola Township and stuff. So, >> yep. As long as the rocks being applied, there's no discrepancies there.
>> Perfect. >> I just need a motion and a second to approve that contract. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Any further discussions? All in favor? >> I oppose. Passes 500. Thanks Jeff and Brian on that one. Uh 7E is city auditor
Kimberly. Okay. So, >> current audit firm we've had Scan uh Scanland Merchant Associates. We have had um in one form of another since uh for over 20 years and they are getting away from audit. Uh it's a very
governmental audits are very specialized. So, we got permission from you guys a while back to go and send out RFPs. Brian contacted five firms. Uh we got three three responses back uh for a three-year contract. Of course, there's
inflation in every year um for their cause. Currently, we were paying $24,000 a year for an audit. Uh the from the three I'm just going to read the 2025 quotes we have from Abdo Ekenyers. Uh the quote for 2025 was $37,975.
From Smith Schaefer, the quote for 2025 was $43,000. and from CLA, Clifton, Larson, and Allen. The quote was $59,810. The only firm which called me and talked to me was APO. We actually talked for
over an hour. Um, I'll be honest, I've worked with one auditor and I'm a little concerned about going to another. It's an unknown. Uh, had a really lovely conversation with them. They were the only one that contacted me, spent an hour on the phone with me, asked me about staffing, um asked me what
questions I had, said if we they were chosen. They would send specific information to find out what things we needed to do to get prepared for the audit. Uh our audit would get done, I believe, earlier because our uh previous auditor also does income tax. This firm
is large enough that they do strictly they have a department that do strictly audits. This firm is also used by a number of other cities our size. I believe Pine Island uses them. >> Island, Cannon Falls, I'm trying to remember the rest of the Calonia I think was one of them.
>> The Southeast Services Cooperative uses them as well. >> And so again, there's a a 22 approximately $22,000 difference between the low and the high. Um so my recommendation personally is that we would go with ABDO as our new um city
auditor. If you guys decide to approve that, we would enter into an audit agreement which would come at a future meeting for you to sign off in and we will schedule the audit and go forward. >> I'll make that motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Any further discussions? All in favor? >> I oppose. Passes 500. Thanks, Kim, for doing that work. Uh, new business resolution 202540, sale of city land. Miles Rob. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh, so
tonight we're bringing a staff report for the sale of land to Keller Bartman properties at 70 West Third Street. Um, this is part of the Bridge View Apartments project, but um the weird part is that this land is in three separate parcels and so one of them is
owned by the city. Um, and originally we didn't think that the building was going to be on that land, but as the project has progressed, we've found that they are going to be building a portion on that property. So, uh, we're proposing to sell that land to them. Um, and so we
have agreed to a fair market price of $3,600. Um, and we brought this before planning commission and to do a sale of land, we need it to fit into our comprehensive plan. So I provided a staff report uh to you all and the planning commission about how this meets our comprehensive
plan. Uh for example, it achieves our housing initiatives because it's going to be used to provide workforce housing which was our key tenant of our comprehensive plan as well as land use goals that we've had as well. Um and so we brought that before planning commission on uh December 9th and they
approved uh this report 4 to one bringing it to city council tonight. Any questions on that? Council, >> wasn't the original plan drawn on that property?
>> Uh, yeah. So, we were not planning on selling the land. We were planning on doing an easement for the patio. And somewhere along the line, it shifted and moved and we got a little corner of the building ended up on on on this property.
Um, had it not been building, we would have just done an easement, more of a permanent easement, I I think, Mike, is the wording. Um, but yeah, it came to light that their corner of the building is is on some of it. Um, so that necessitated selling the land. Uh, you
got that this land for zero dollars. Um, it's not going to be buildable. It's not going to be usable for us at any point. Um, this is part of where where Bob asked the questions because there's some parking on there. Um um you know so this is where Yep. Some
of them will still be parking um and uh it'll be public parking when they survey that they must know when they do this. So they still do it from the war
>> at some point. So, originally when they we were starting this all out, um when they did the surveys, uh the property was a little smaller than than they thought originally with their first uh with their first looks at it and their first
uh concept drawings. Um, so I'm guessing that's where it changed a little bit, but again, like Miles said, this was a report. Um, we had to show the planning commission that it's consistent with our comprehensive plan. Uh, everything is on
here. Uh, Miles did a nice job. Uh, housing, land use, um, it all fits right in with the comprehensive plan. Uh so um it should be noted that the planning commission approved this on a 4-1 vote.
>> I'll make a motion to approve resolution 202540. >> I'll second. >> Any further discussions? I will do a roll call. Bob >> I >> uh Joan, >> hi. >> Kevin, >> I Fred
>> and I I passes four to one. Thanks Rob in the planning and zoning for that work. Um let's jump to 8B's umbrella public works teamster contract. Uh Brian. Yep. Um oh here I'm going to go back up to my memo that's got some of the
highlights on there and that contains a typo as well. I always got to throw in a couple of typos to see if you guys are reading this. >> No, that's not the reason. I just have typos now and then. Um, so yeah, it was a great negotiation. Um,
again, like I said with LS, the the police, everybody's uh after the same thing, we're all here to uh to take care of our city to make it better. Uh, so it was a pleasure negotiating with the public works staff and uh and the teamsters as well. Um, a lot of the
similar things uh that carried through to the LES contract are kind of kind of carried through to both. Uh we did uh revise on call language in this one uh from five to six hours uh from five hours paid to six hour paid for Saturday and Sunday on call. Um these guys are
going out on the weekends. Um and we want to make sure we compensate for them. They're losing out on some family time. It's part of the job, but still uh compensation for it is big and we're we're happy to be able to uh agree to those increases. um uh up to eight hours
uh for holiday um from 600 again. They're out there um on a holiday uh not with their family taking care of our our city. So um so we agreed to go to eight hours on that. Um here's where the typo is. It says Christmas Day changed from a
half day to a full day off. Well, Christmas Day has always been a full day, of course. Should say Christmas Eve. Christmas Eve uh changed from a half day uh to a full day. Um and we agree to that wage adjustments
similar to well exactly the same as the contract you approved at the last meeting for for the police uh wage study uh this year and then 3% in 27 and 28. Uh again the increased longevity of payments that carries through to staff
from 60 to $65 that hadn't changed in as long as Kim can remember and she's been here for a few years. Um and we uh consolidated the similar to what we did with the police too. We consolidate consolidated the boot allowance and uniform provisions into one one section. Um giving um
individuals uh the ability to to give themselves what they need. Um you know um boots they wear them out pretty quickly but you know sometimes the boots last a little longer then they don't have to buy on that schedule. They can get another piece of uh clothing or something that they need. Um and and
this includes uh the logo clothing which um that that is one thing too that uh all logo clothing will be worn at all times um when on city time. Um no different hats, no different jackets, no different
u when you're on the clock, you are wearing City of Zimroa logo clothing. Um used to be identified as a as a proud City of Zimroa employee. So So that was in there too. That was part of the part of the whole deal. But yeah, so was a good negotiation, good contract I think
uh you know beneficial for um for the citizens as well as as as the staff and and keeping morale high and keeping everybody they do just a phenomenal job. So we're happy to have them. >> Any further discussions? All in favor? I oppose. Passes 500. I just want to thank
Bob uh for his work on that and with the police union uh personnel committee and then the representatives for both unions. I know it was a lot quick and easier than it has been in the past. So, >> and just for reference, the personnel committee, um Todd, Bob, myself, and
Miles Rob were in on the negotiations. Kim is a whole lot of support for us as well. So, she's she's part of the group, too. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um 8C, posting of the police sergeant position. Brian. >> Uh yes. Uh well, maybe we'll take it to Pat. Yeah.
>> So, we've had certainly a lot of discussion over the past year and many workshops um in regards to this position and the importance of it. Um and um this is this is a much needed position to to
fill a hole that we vacated a few years ago um when we had a couple uh uh officers leave for the sheriff's office. So, um, originally it was a supervisor position. Um, and, uh, there's been some
recent discussion on making that, um, return to that same position, which makes it a lot more palatable to that person knowing what their responsibilities are rather than impose that on an officer. Um, because there's a certain shift that we're utilizing uh,
to make some flexibility. Um so to cover shifts, time off um soon um to have these uh sbatical leaves and so forth. Um as well as just being able to um keep our staffing level up to uh more than
one um especially during that that peak time. >> Um we experience frequent uh instances where the city is unc uh uncovered by police presence because calls for services. This is just the nature of our business and so therefore um there are
times where the city is relying on the county to potentially take calls for us in our absence. So having that extra personnel is essential um to shift coverage and so forth. So um I'm just hoping that you all agree in the same uh
and uh we can move forward hopefully here sometime in the early year to get someone on board. I'll make a motion to approve the postition. >> I'll second. >> Any further discussions? I know we've discussed it. Uh I know we talked about
a little bit about uh if we hired an officer would probably be a level three, four, five, and the sergeant would be a one or two because of inexperience. So that's kind of something that we need to make sure that we keep an eye on that we are at that level because that's kind of
what we talked about and it's kind of a wash hourly wise. So I just wanted to point that out. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussions mean some things might be changing though in the year here but being that we're going
to end up with three supervisory positions for overseeing four officers going with the seven officer some of your time up Tony to do your search or I mean I don't me I
between the chief and the sergeant. We'll see the other ones. We'd almost have three three supervisor positions to four officers. One sergeant
getting a seventh officer more time for you to sergeant. I would like to see >> I just have to voice one concern that I have. Um Chief and Tony have explained things uh quite well of what they need,
what they like. Um Mayor Haml's talked about the order and the timing of it. Um I still have a little concern. I just wonder if it was something to wait with until I know our chief is retiring at some point and uh wondering if we need
to wait until we do have a new chief in line. Um it's just a thought that I have uh concern. Um I can certainly help answer that. >> What's that? >> I can certainly help answer why you wouldn't want to do that.
>> That that was a way to do it in the past. Um, most agencies now are they're they're preparing rather than waiting. Um, that puts us behind the eightball even further when we do that. Um, it
takes time to train somebody in. Um, and it also takes time just to ultimately process that that uh employee. Um especially if it's someone that's, you know, if you're hiring for an officer, which you're going to end up doing at some point, um you may end up having uh
you're you're likely going to have a brand new person right out of school, and that's four months of FTO. So, um if if we plan it that way, we'll always be behind the eight-ball. And so, it's better to be prepared. Um, I, you know,
with my anticipation of retiring, which I'd really like to do, um, I, it would be best to try to be ahead of that than behind it. Um, because otherwise we're going to put ourselves behind and it's going to again cause issues with
covering time off and having proper coverage. So, and you know, I think we we did this here with Officer Bret for that hire. We were anticipating an officer that was going to leave for the state patrol, which is unheard of to
say, "Hey, we're gonna start the process even though this person hasn't even been fully hired on to that other agency." He gave us almost 6 months uh of uh notice and it took almost four of those months
to get somebody that would fit in the bill. And ultimately, we were able to hire somebody. We used some of those safety dollars to bridge the funding gap of that. And that officer was still working alongside this other officer
before he left, which allowed that officer uh which was officer Evenson to help train that new officer. That way we didn't have a gap. Very important to us. We are a small department. We are underst staffed and
we still will be with the seventh officer according to all the stat statistics. So, as well as our level of service, we do a lot of calls for service compared to agencies that are the same size.
And Pat, the uh the request for a sergeant is because you're trying to cover shifts, not necessarily just four officers, but the shifts that those officers >> Well, it it the supervisors when it was originally detailed. I mean, this this allows supervision to happen when I'm
not here. I mean, and I'm I can only be here for so long. And then we have coverage at night for supervisory uh assistance to those officers. So they're able to help make decisions that then I don't have to make. So I mean
it's there there's there's a heck of a lot really to it. And so ultimate ultimately in in this position those those sergeants they supervised their team. I supervised those sergeants to chain of command. This is the way
it's done in virtually every agency around. So, >> and the dynamics, and we've discussed this before, but with one sergeant trying to cover both sides of the schedule, um stretching stretching our sergeant
pretty thin, um this position is uh part of the responsibility is to cover shifts for those on your side of the schedule. uh to find an officer to do that or agree to all that flexibility and and the uh uh what do we call the midshift
uh three to three um you know we were going to try and do it. We went into it thinking, okay, we're going to hire an officer. We're going to try and make this work. the more we talked about it and and the more it was talked about amongst the officers in the area and where whoever else might have been
interested uh the more it became obvious that hey we should probably relook at a sergeant position u a little more um enticing uh you know a little better top end supervisory uh that which some people are going to be looking for to
get into that get that experience um you know so I I really think a sergeant is the way to go. Um, you know, for a lot of those reasons and it's way more complex than we can even explain right now. We had a work session that went forever and and and and chief and and sergeant did a wonderful job
with the presentation on shifting and all of that stuff. So, so, uh, from administrative standpoint, I I'm I would recommend a sergeant. Um, but you know, in my opinion on, and I've been pretty
open about it, is knowing the chief is retiring Augustish, that that's going to put us short there, depending on where we hire, if we can hire a supervisor to help some of the supervising. So when the chief leaves and we have a new chief, we have
somebody that kind of know their system where we can teach the possible new chief or help with coverage. Um I've also learned over the eight years of being in the U personnel committee about every two or three years we lose a good
officer. We just lost Tyler here. Um is it going to happen? So I'd rather be a little more proactive on that. Plus also we're losing our chief here in 10 months. So um and I think a supervisor is more appetizing
because we well should get more experienced officer versus if we just hired an officer they're usually a little bit or a lot green because the stepping stone of school. So that is kind of my opinion and I've kind of made
that clear um kind of the whole way. So I to go back to the original I think we have a motion to hire a sergeant and we have a second. Any other discussion on this topic? All in favor? >> I
>> oppose. >> Okay. Uh passes three to two. >> Um uh 8 D. uh resolution 202538 on uh the subdivision of 454 West 2nd
Street. Miles, you want to take that quick? >> Yep. Um so Jared Post at 454 West 2nd Street uh seeking to uh change the lot lines of his property into the neighboring property at 472 West Second
Street. Uh he owns both of these properties uh just to provide more context there. Um but he's seeking to do that because he wants to add more to his principal house um so that he can sell his other property. Um and this was brought to planning commission uh
December 9th and public hearing was held. We did hear one public comment um and it was uh against this uh from a neighbor but they didn't wish to be shared publicly um and so um yeah that's
what I have for you right now. Any questions on that, council? I mean, it's we we we're starting to see that more and more when people want to do things. We got little chunks of land here and that. So, it's just to kind of combine it into one lot,
>> right? And then the he's going to sell the one he's currently combining. >> I think he wants Miles, you want to answer that? >> Yeah. So he he lives at 454 West Second Street, but the other the other house at 472, he owns it, but he wants to sell
that one. So he wants to move this lot line over into it, mostly so he can keep his garden. Uh but so he wants to move that line over, and this is just the process we have to do with the county uh to get all squared away. I'll make the motion to approve this.
>> I'll second. >> Any further discussions? All in favor? >> Oppose? Passes 500 Z. Uh, report. Brian. >> Yes. The pool bid, our pool rebid. Jeff
Troy Ness from the park board. Uh, and he's on the pool committee, too. And I met with Burbach earlier this week to review the rebid advertisement and changes made to the plan. and specifications. Um, they did just exactly what they said they would do.
Um, we one request that we did have was to consider a line item bid. I don't know if that's possible with a complex pool bid. Um, I don't want to have biders say, "Well, we're not going to bid because that's too much work to give every little line item." But, uh,
something we're going to consider um rather than alternates. So, the alternates are what they did, which is great. Um, I think we'll probably stick with the alternates. Um, but if there's an opportunity to go to line item, we can see every line item. You know, that
that gives the the park board and council the opportunity to say, you know, not this, not this for each individual line item. But the problem is all those little line items are tied to something else, and you just can't get rid of some of that stuff. So, so I think it'll be uh alternates on there.
Um, dad will go out right after New Year's. Um, uh, more cool stuff. The Zable Group, the Zabroda area business leaders group is hosting a social media opportunity for donors, uh, here at or or supporters
even um, here at city hall. Um, they're going to do some uh, little interviews and put it out on Facebook and social media. So, anybody interested in that 2 pm tomorrow, um the doors will be open and they're going to do their thing with that. So,
and u along those lines, the Zable Todd Fitz and Brian Hogan from that group did a nice video that was out on Facebook. I don't know if anybody saw it. I liked it and shared it and did all that. I don't know how many followers I have though. Um but but a big thank you big thank you
to them for for all of their efforts. >> That it that's it. Thank you. Mike Flair, do you have anything to add to public comments? >> Um, not tonight. Thanks. >> Thank you,
>> Beth. Bev is Beth. Okay, >> thank you. Just a report for Zimroa Area Ambulance. Um, we are in the process of initiating an audit for our services. Um, that process has begun. I don't have a date on when that will be completed,
but I'll be in contact with Kevin and Brian once we know. Typically, we'd try to have that at a full board meeting. Um, but I don't have a date at this point in time. What we do have is a date for when we will get our next new rig,
and we anticipate that being in active service this spring. Um, in conjunction with the conversation from earlier, we ordered that rig three years ago.
Um, we will soon be on tea for ordering our next new rig. Um, knowing that it needs that much lead time. Um, and so when it comes to equipment dollars, I um agree with what Mr. John Olsen said
about we have plenty of dollars that we need to continue to maintain our equipment for life saving for this community. And first and foremost, we appreciate every dollar that we're allocated. Um
secondly, if there's any opportunity for any additional dollars, we will not turn those down. So, thank you. Thank you, >> Chief. >> Nothing to say. >> I just want to say uh it's the last
council meeting of 2025. I want to thank the council and all our city staff for the hard work that we've done this year. I know we've had a couple hiccups, but uh we're still working them on, but I just wanted to thank all you guys' hard work and city staff and have a good holiday. Bob,
>> nothing tonight. >> Don't nothing tonight. Kevin, >> just merry Christmas everybody. >> Meeting a journ.