I walked out and we were even in the nicer spot and I one of the girls that I just kind of got to know while I was there and I was like can I walk out of that without someone asking me for something >> I did give a dollar to one homeless guy cuz he said good morning so he was like good morning I hope you have a good day and I was like you know what >> you get a dollar they they were they would follow us they would hassle us and yell at us pretty aggressive Sorry. What were you saying? >> Main Street. [laughter] >> Just kind of big stretch of blocks right there. >> You went down the other ones. It was like a completely different vibe. >> Yeah, it was very weird. >> Yeah. Coastal, like I said, is how I would describe it. >> Very um very industrial kind of blue collar cuz it was an old its own fishing village. >> Seafood was okay. So, our meal at the conference was lobster. Like, how could you even afford to do that in Minnesota, right? And so, then after we go through, we were kind of sitting on the end and the one lady, she's like, "There's more over there." She's like, "Just go get more." So, we had like two lobsters for dinner. Yeah. For the conference. >> And then I had stuffed lobster there, which I had never heard of, but they lobster and the stuffings in it. It's like crab and everything and stuff. Oh my gosh. >> You could gain 900 lb if I would have stayed there. Seafood's good and it's cheap cuz obviously it's right there. >> It's right there. >> We're [laughter] all waiting and time. All right. I am going to call this work session on April 20th to order. Um, up first we have the 10-year financial plan, the plan update process overview. Mr. Mark, >> thank you, Mayor and Council. So, uh, we're pleased to be bringing this to you a little bit earlier in the year. Uh, the kickoff is kind of around the same time, but, uh, you'll see a succession of, uh, [clears throat] the staffing plan tonight and then, uh, your next several work sessions have items. So, we think that this will hopefully put you in a better position to navigate the budget season independently of the long-term financial plan. Um, a new slide that we're kind of putting together this year is just kind of um rooting you in kind of the importance of this 10-year financial plan. If you look at the financial plan, your strategic plan, and your comp plan, uh fundamentally I would offer that those are the kind of the three cornerstones of how you kind of build your vision for the community. Uh the budget, the ordinances, policies, etc., purchasing, those are the kind of the day-to-day or your meeting to meeting things. And then eventually uh you have a team of staff that uh go ahead and implement do customer service, service delivery, etc. Um and so as as you start talking about this 10-year financial plan, a lot of these [clears throat] pieces since we've been doing this for several years now, uh should seem pretty familiar. Uh so we we prepare the plan with assistance from Northland. Uh each year we add a year. So for right now we're planning from 2027 through 2036. So 2036. This is a new year. Uh we look at all types of planning input. So population growth, market growth, market value growth, inflation, etc. Um and we consider those for adjustment. This isn't a budget. So you're not pre-approving anything. This is an instrument for you to take a snapshot in time and say, "How does this make me feel?" We're hoping that this inspires a conversation and dialogue amongst the council uh tonight of what you feel good about, what makes you feel uncertain, uh what information uh that you need to help you facilitate shorten long-term decisions for the city. We are in a position, and I've highlighted a few where you really have some uh generational type capital improvements. they don't come along every day. I would also offer that you've been talking about them for a number of years. So hopefully there's a sense of um security in that. Uh so uh the first step is the council's presented with those draft plans. So you'll see the staffing piece tonight and then uh the balance of the plans at your upcoming sessions. Uh then based on that feedback, we uh input kind of final draft models. Uh share that with Northland. um that plan that is presented, it should give you um outputs related to tax uh rate impacts, user rate impacts, etc. And then finally, when you're comfortable uh with that final plan document, uh it's adopted later on this summer, probably June or July of this year, and then we start the process again uh 6 months later. Um, so here's your planning cycles, and this is where I think there's uh maybe a little bit more of a swell of of impactful decisions to be made in this upcoming process. Uh, this is an example of staffing in that process of from conceptual to annual budget. And there are a couple projects that are in that annual budget piece. Um, we're not necessarily going to be talking about them tonight as far as like independent plans. I'll give you a little bit of a preview, but when you think about certified levy, which uh the community's been talking about for a decade, but really intently for the last 10, uh public services facility, um and then the southwest uh infrastructure project, those are three projects that are getting to that budget, uh do you bo what are the questions that you have? What are the engagement strategies uh that you want to make sure have occurred? Uh so here's your tenative schedule. So tonight we're doing the process overview and staffing. Uh and then you can see the balance of our tenative schedule. Uh we've left left some room if there's uh some needed work. If you have uh some different scenarios or alternatives you want to discuss in each individual plan. Uh this gives us enough room to come back uh with some additional um feedback based on the feedback that you had and show you some different drafts if that's needed. Um, so kind of diving into uh one of the bigger projects is our certified levy project. A lot of progress thanks to Aaron Schmidt and the uh easement acquisition team uh on that. So we're expecting uh to bring final to you on the at the May 4th meeting. We're still planning construction for this fall. Um all that's phased and scoped I think is a to be determined. are working. We have a some internal meeting scheduled to kind of get at some of the fundamental pieces that the council discussed at your last work session. [clears throat] Um, and then I think you saw based on some feedback that we got from uh Representative Emmer's office, we did uh submit for some congressionally dedicated uh funding or spending through uh Senator Clolobashar and Senator Smith uh for $3 million. Is that correct? Correct. Um, and so right now that potential funding gap, I know that it's still $3 billion, but want to kind of give a collective pat on the back, especially to Mayor Johnson. It does represent that 81% of the funding is coming from outside resources. Now, fundamentally, those are tax dollars and the city of Carver contributes, but they're not local to the city. And so I think anytime that we can do an infrastructure project where 19 at a at a max 19% is coming from uh city coffers, that's probably uh I would consider that a win. Um a plan update uh that we're working on with Northland is that worst case scenario um of a $3 million funding gap. So that says you're going to do the project exactly how as you see the bids come in exactly how the estimates came in. Um [clears throat] fundamentally that would come from the storm water fund based on the mechanics of what the best bond fund and and how um some of the efficiencies that come into bonding for that. And so I asked Northland to just do an exercise of what that would do to our storm water utility bill. And based on some of the recent increases you made and then the lack of projects and the outears uh there are not they are not anticipating uh any additional increases to your storm water rates. And again some of that that detail will become more transparent when you see the full uh work of the plan and the the numbers that they put into that. Um, so I just wanted to kind of stop here and give the council some space to to discuss and reflect on at least this if there's any um kind of pre-direction that you want uh staff to consider as we uh develop a draft plan for you. >> Thoughts? >> Well, I want to see it going forward is to our original plan. So until we change course, Christie, as you pointed out, I don't want to see uh prisonscape uh in the city of Carver. I the um the courtyards the the way those looked. >> Can I interrupt you? I think the question is bonding or financing that >> it can be any. >> Okay. >> But isn't that what we're talking about? we have to do that if we want to keep our original plan. >> Well, I think the in my mind the question that we're kind of at the turning point of is do we scale back the project and make it work or do we go for the our original plan and figure out how we're going to get that additional 3 million. >> Okay, that's [clears throat] what I'm saying. So, I guess yeah, >> I'm saying I want to go forward with our original plan uh knowing that it might cost us $3 million and we have to figure out a way to to bond that. I can't see uh a project of this scale and size uh and economizing it to the point where that is what everyone is going to see. So, everyone today, everyone that moves to the community uh in the next 20, 30 years, that is that's what they've got to live with. There won't ever be a time to to rescale it and try to add those amenities back. Cities typically don't do that. It has to happen at the beginning. So, I could have said that in a much shorter sentence. >> Sorry for trying to [laughter] singularly like what are we going to do? >> Yeah. So, I'm I want to see it the way we had intended to build it and let's figure out how we're going to pay for it. Let's do it quickly so it doesn't get more expensive. >> All right. >> Question. >> Yeah, I I mean I agree with that. I mean, that is a scary number to look at to try and figure out how we're going to fund it, but we when you look at the future, the fact that that levy that project that we're doing is going to be there for let's just say 50 years. I mean, we're building some >> 150 years. Okay, I just I won't be here. Um 50, but um so if I am I won't die probably know why I'm here. Um but anyways, if uh I don't know where I am. Um but anyways, I just think that if we want let's look at 100 years then we're building for 100 years. So if we skimp on it now, that's what it's going to be for ever basically. And I don't think that I I think we worked really hard on kind of the aesthetics of our town and our city and making sure that it looks um in a way that's, you know, pleasing. And this is safety, but on the top of it, this is something that everyone is going to have to look at for a really long time. And I just don't think that having bare walls um for the next hundred years is what we is is doing the best that we can for the city. as much as that number is growth. Lori, >> um, same sentiment. I would like to us to stay with the original plan. Um, I think it's just on my mind a lot more too, just the weather and like we, you know, we have great trail connectivity and just seeing some of the other like nearby communities and just just something when you see that concrete wall is just nothing draws you there. You're just like, I'll just keep going. But, you know, I want us to be that destination of like, oh, let's let's go. I hear water. Let's go look at it. Just [laughter] >> And then we have an incident. >> Okay. From the railing. [laughter] >> From the railing. >> Okay. I stated [snorts] this last time. I'd like to see the cost come down. I don't want to be spending a $3 million gap. Um, but I understand the majority of the council wants to move forward with the plan as is. And if that is the case, then I want the strategic plan to include the worst case scenario for what that would look like for the city. >> Um, I agree with Kayla and that I $3 million is a lot. Um, so if asked which direction I would go to, I would favor the less expensive option. I will never favor something that looks like prison walls and we would never have a project that would look like that. But I think that there's something that could be a half weight point or you know these aren't going to be plain concrete walls. They will be stamped concrete. Whatever. All of that said, I think this is the happiest that I've ever been to be overruled and to lose [laughter] the momentum swing with me. So, like shoot, I was in the minority. Um, [clears throat] but I you're right. We're never going to take a look at this. I just remember Don Dan Lannis when we were doing the uh Jonathan Carver Parkway project and him [snorts] saying like, "Yeah, we're going to spend we're going to invest in landscaping now because communities never go back and say like, "Oh, we've got an extra six figures and we're going to make upgrades to this." I know that that would never happen with us or any future council. So, um I am okay with that. Um just adding a little bit more color commentary to what Brent said. We met um with Liz, whose last name was escaping me from Emmer's office the Friday before last um when she was home over their spring break. She's one of his DC staffers. Um, and we she asked about funding and I've kind of got a little bit of funding fatigue, right? In terms of like keep asking and keep asking and keep asking, but she brought it up and she was like, "Yeah, put in Emmer's window for congressionally designated spending had closed, but she suggested that we go with Clolobashar and um Smith's office." So, that's the route that we're taking. that's for their 2027 um funding cycle, which it could be another year or more depending on how things shake out in DC um before that's determined. But um I think that, you know, again to what Brent said, if we get this for [clears throat] 20% of the purchase price, if I said to you like, "Do you guys want an iPhone for 80% off?" We'd all jump at it, right? So it's still a really good value. And if we found the funding already, which it sounds like Brent has through the storm water fund, um it sounds like we might be closer to funding this than I realize. So, um I'm excited about that. >> Just a point of clarification, Brad, $3 million is not just aesthetic. There were some functional attributes of that like vehicle access. >> Yeah, I wouldn't uh classify it as aesthetic. I would say it's a a change in how you would approach uh maintenance. So, um having a railing makes it easier for public services to maintain, but it also looks better. >> Understood. I just want to be have it be clear that it's not $3 million of a beautifification project. all that >> it functionally changes how >> correct >> how we access it and also changes our costs >> right and that's part of the rateing exercise we're going to go through is make sure that if there is anything that's >> maybe out of balance with like an aesthetic over like a um maintenance feature that looks better uh I think we can identify those and then show them to you in kind of a menu form and say okay how do you want to proceed So, and then this is just kind of a graphic um depiction of how this project would come together, getting the green and yellow in that phase one. hopefully uh maybe being able to secure uh phase two, but the I would offer the priority area right now is to get the the green done because of the regional significance of making sure that we align with the opening of the Miriam Junction uh trail bridge crossing. Anything I'm missing here on this, Eron? >> No. Uh moving on to the southwest infrastructure project. Uh a lot of good work by the council in discussing and implementing uh trunk fees. Uh kind of the way that I think most of you are familiar with uh development is that on intersection improvements uh the developer um is responsible for 100% of those improvements. In this case, there's a county road or there's a county share. If the city wanted to do, this is a case of kind of quote unquote amenities, the more that the city would want to add amenities to this intersection. So, think of enhanced landscaping in the middle of the circle or any type of monumentation similar to uh JCP and six. Those would be city costs. Um, this is kind of embedded into the extension of trunk line and trunk line water and sanitary sewer. So, that's where the trunk fees come in. Um, on the amenity parts, uh, that's where the city has in its long-term plan up to about a million dollars worth of cost share for the intersection. Um, one of the things that uh has kind of come up as a little bit of a wrinkle and I shared a little bit of background with the council is uh going north of this intersection to Fourth Street West. The city made a pitch to the county to kind of fasttrack uh the urbanization of that from a fourlane road from this intersection to Fourth Street West. Uh the county has that in their capital plan, but only as a resurfacing and some modest intersection improvements with turn lanes. And one of the things that we're going to be working out with them over the course of the next few weeks is uh how that reconciles that for cost because there is a dramatic cost increase to the city uh from going from what's called their developerdriven program, which is how they're viewing this now because it's not in their capital plan. uh to a capital plan project um swinging like I think our estate assessment was a $3 million swing. Um and so it made it clear to county staff that uh the city doesn't have enough bandwidth in its long-term plan. We haven't identified that cost to that extreme. And so as we go through that um and I've kind of connected with with uh Dave Hemsy the county administrator on trying to find a path that's kind of the in between uh developerdriven and capital plan because I would offer it's a long-term cost savings for both the county and the city to consider that now. Um, and it eliminates a little bit of I think we all are familiar with construction fatigue of people kind of dealing with that on Jonathan Carver Parkway. Uh, but at the end of the day, this is an editorial comment by me. Um, but if you have to pay three or four or maybe even five times the cost today to do something that might cost you, you know, that much less in five or six years, it's hard to kind of wrap your hands around why you would do that today. Uh, based on bolted and mix study information, uh, the need to urbanize that from four lanes from this intersection to fourth street, you know, could be 2035 or later. So you could be looking at 10 15 years before that is warranted or or needed. Um so again uh I'll give you a little bit of space to kind of maybe provide some input on how significant um or how much of a priority extending uh Jonathan Carver Parkway to four lanes from this intersection to fourth is. and we'll we'll provide you with feedback either way, but having a line of sight to like how you feel about it uh will would certainly help inform how we approach those conversations uh with the county highway department >> thoughts. Christy, >> yeah, [laughter] >> someone else can kind of I'll start. Um, no one likes to see fresh asphalt torn up. Uh, and I understand that, but and you'll hear me say this a million times, we have big, big budget [clears throat] things in the very, very short term. And if it's going to cost us significantly more to do it now rather than to wait until we do it on the county's timeline, I'd rather wait and do it on the county's timeline. I'll add to that. I want to make sure that it's on the county's timeline. It feels like they're kind of kicking the can down the road a little bit with this. This 100% would be the right time to do this and we don't have the budget for it. No, nor do I feel that we should pay the higher split because of them saying that it's not in their plan. It's a bummer. It feels like we kind of went down one path and then there was like a last minute turn with this realization. Um, but I I agree that unfortunately it just isn't in the budget right now. It I take that back. It's not that it isn't in the budget, but I feel strongly that we should be fa pay paying more than the cost share that we paid for phase one of the Jonathan Carver Parkway project, which is a question that I asked two weeks ago. And I was told, "No, no, it'll be the same." So, >> I believe what you were told was worst case scenario, [clears throat] it's the same, >> right? [laughter] >> You guys better remember it than me. But it's important that like I did ask that question cuz I was kind of reading the tea leaves and >> thought that this was was afraid that this was how it was going to end up. >> I have a question. When you say that the county talks about this being development [clears throat] driven, right? So we have a development that will begin out here. Is it possible then that they're going to move we think they may move that up being that this development will be coming in? You know, when they when they say development driven, it's [clears throat] it's in terms of their they have a cost participation policy and there are two buckets of there's a sheet that has a grid [clears throat] that says curve is split this much and trail is split. >> And so there's there's a developer driven bucket and then there's the CIP bucket. >> And if it's not in their fiveyear CIP, then it it by default goes into the developerdriven bucket. Um and so I think we can certainly be advocates to have it moved up but I on the like the other side devil's advocate is um we're also telling them based on both and mix analysis that the improvements actually aren't like needed for maybe 10 to 15 years. So there is a space for them to like reasonably say we're not going to include it until 2035 or we're just going to monitor it and see how things go. Um but you know we also shared um there isn't a way for us to you'll love this there isn't a nexus between uh [clears throat] >> old scars from [laughter] >> what the developer is doing but [clears throat] we can't the city can't fundamentally charge back these costs to to summerfield because we're chasing a you know four-lane urbanization of a county road up you know a half a mile. Um, and they were good about that. Um, you also like probably if you saw like the figure that I included to Lyndon, um, it is marked on their, uh, CIP as a, uh, eligible for their like sales tax or transportation tax. I get the two kind of confused. I've uh asked them to to contemplate is that could we use that as maybe a accelerator to try to uh get that done and I obviously don't know the mechanics of what their fund balance is and what they're um attributing some of those revenues to and they're doing huge projects on 212 and five and so I don't want to be too cavalier um but we're at least asking the questions uh Dave Hemy's facilitating a workshop uh with Linda the city the administrators in the county to have a conversation about that and kind of educate us on how their plan is kind of going to be rolled out. Uh so I think good things are coming. I I am not hopeful that it's going to like impact like this project based on uh the turnaround time that we need to facilitate you know summer field um developing. Do you know what is it that goes from downtown Chesa up the hill? The old 212 is that 61 >> correct? >> Do either one of you guys know what the cost share arrangement is for that project? >> They're still working through that. I think the county has turned back funds um because that used to be a state federal. So there is a source of revenue. I don't uh I connected with Matt on that. So, I don't have the full detail other than I know they're pay the developer is paying for intersection improvements. And Chesca uses a different funding tool for their roads. They have like a transportation fee where that they collect off development. So, they do the road construction and not the developer. It's I don't know all the mechanics behind it. Does our cost share change per project or is it excuse me is it pretty typical between this road to that road. We pay this percent. >> Yeah, it's pretty typical if the fundamentals of the project are the same. You know, it goes up if you have like a uh two-lane roundabout. The costs go up, but the the like the percentage is usually what 7525 give or take. Yeah. >> Okay. So, if we're going to I like I'm I'm not going moving ahead on our kind of I guess on our own with this and pushing ahead only because I also think it there's a little bit if we start pushing it and wanting to fund things that we're saying, well, we just want it now. Okay, we're going to get it now and we've got enough money and don't worry, we're just going to take care of our own things. And I think that that just makes me think for the future. What does cost share look like for the future? if we start just kind of having that I don't that I want it right now so I'm going to have it right now mentality. So >> prepared for that. >> The intersection itself [clears throat] Brent um is it as of right now are they planning on building it under the assumption that that [clears throat] is going to be four lanes or are they building it are they building it smaller given that it's two lanes now? >> Oh good to >> does my question make sense? >> Yeah. Right now it's laid out it for the the four lane config. Okay. So, they would be building it prepared for four lanes even though there's only two. >> Correct. >> Which seems like a silly exercise. We're going to expand the road to four lanes and then narrow it down on the other side of the roundabout. [laughter] But >> that's traffic down probably. [laughter] There's some big swings in here and depending upon even where like the project scope starts and uh ends because I think you know we could be in a position where the county pays for 50% of the pedestrian underpass or 0% of the pedestrian underpass. So that's a $325,000 swing right there. So there's some work to do. The Lynen and uh the county have been reasonable in the past. I don't know that they will be on this one. It could be just a matter of, you know, they don't have the funds to complete a project of that scale. And what I mentioned, Lynon is, you know, we probably should have had this conversation earlier. Um, because I thought it would have been a slam dunk. It was in their capital plan. Um, it turns out they had an unfortunate situation with a map being mislabeled. Um, so it just kind of created some unfulfilled expectations unfortunately, >> and I asked about it years ago and was told, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's in the plan. We'll take care of it. We're just waiting on city of Carver to get on it." So, um, maybe a lot of crisscross communication, unfortunately. But I I like what you're saying. It's kind of like I think if we start saying, "Sure, we'll pay for it." then that's a really bad precedent to start. >> Um, and we're looking at our neighboring communities. There's stuff going on in Victoria. There's stuff going on in Chaska, Chanassen, you name it. Um, I think we can be patient on this one and wait until it's our turn. >> Anybody else on this? >> Thanks. >> Yeah. Um, uh, I'm in the same >> where I'd rather be patient and have it align, get the fourlane when they also see a need for it. >> Sure. And so I'm good with that. >> Um, I would like to see more visibility on what their plan is or what and I just don't understand enough like I now finally get how like schools get the budgeting and how like they plan ahead for building, but I feel like with the county I don't always know. So, I'm starting to learn about it, but you had that email that was their 2023 to 2031 road and bridge construction plan. But I would like to like hear more from them on, you know, if or maybe maybe just that um email with the slide just says it all, which is um but what's what is very very disappointing is even statewide, our city's known to have a lot of growth and we do not have one of their little DD development driven symbols. They've got one in Chaska kind of Wakonia Lake town border and then one in Chan. >> We don't want that. Like that means that >> that's what I need help with. >> Yep. That's where like they're doing a project and it's going to be under that developmentdriven costition policy. So they're just [clears throat] >> noting it because that impacts how their level of funding for that project. I mean >> I mean it's not that we don't want one. is financially it's more burdensome for the developer as opposed to like a a pure capital project that does anyway. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Does it have anything? And I know there's significant road projects, but that's with you have highway 5, 212, you get a lot of additional funding, >> right? And that's kind of the you can pick a pick these kind of policies apart because fundamentally, I would say everything on that plan or not everything, but 90% of that plan is development driven. I mean, we don't expand Jonathan Carver Parkway going north on Sixth Street if there is no development. Maybe it gets a milling overlay, but it's not going from two to four lanes. >> So, like the whole kind of like >> just for fun >> method methodology of it kind of gets blown apart. It's just it's the best attempt by the county to be um consistent cuz as you can imagine, you know, we and every other city are the first in line to say what are they doing over there and why can't why why isn't our deal the same as theirs? So they uh put that policy together to try to establish some consistency of funding some of these projects >> almost. It would be better if it was not developer development driven but development prioritized. >> No, >> it is well [laughter] it makes it makes more sense that way. The idea is like look everything's being driven by development but this is specifically having to be prioritized because of the scale of it. But >> yeah. >> All right. Uh public services facility another uh I would offer kind of generational project. So within the existing capital plan and then based on the the study we have uh 20-year build at a $35 million uh project uh that's prorated between general fund water fund and sanitary sewer fund. Uh the estimated general fund debt portion on that is about 1.5 million. As you know, we acquired land uh last year for that. Um we're expecting water and sanitary sewer to be available uh late 2027. We just had a meeting about that. >> Um we're in design development. We're getting uh we're starting to get uh some cost information. We're meeting later in the week with Tara and Ortell. uh as we kind of get ready to deliver I would say like the design development portion of the council in the summer and then um uh start with community engagement with uh the open house and some activities that we're going to be working on planning for. There is a real I think like a kind of a big big gulp if you will on kind of how you want to move forward with this project. Um, Andrew and I were talking about that this morning. Um, just in going from like a spring of 27 bid opening to a fall of 27 bid opening, uh, Tara was estimating about aund or not 100, $1.7 million worth of like bid variance in just those 6 months. And so >> to wait or which one do you want >> to wait? Okay. So, if you bid in this, if you bid in the spring of 27, let's just say that's zero. If you bid in the fall of 27, it's said that 1.7 plus that zero. Um, are you tracking me? >> It's going to be more expensive the longer we wait. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Just like the levy was. >> I'm just saying what in 3 months cost a million dollars more. [laughter] >> Uh, well, and so let's say for like I would say like you as elected officials, there's some It's a real I think it's just a hard decision pattern if you know that you're going to build it and you're comfortable with the size kind of navigating when to push the button after you complete you know the required processes in a lot of instances and this is why I offer that a lot of instances if you you can save money by waiting you know if I think about my personal budget we can't afford to finish the basement we put money aside And eventually we save up enough we can hopefully do it um on our own. In this one, I don't know if the math works out where if you said, "Well, we're not quite ready in 27 or 28. Let's wait till 2030." Um, and I'm not offering when to do it. I'm just wanting to point out that there's kind of a tricky little fundamental in there that I want you to be aware of as you think about when the right time is to do this. And again, this is all predicated on you liking the size of the building, liking how it's laid out, being comfortable with the overall cost as much as you can reasonably do that. We have a lot of information to give you. Uh, but having gotten that information this morning from Tara related to like the cost escalation in just a matter of like 6 months, uh, gave me a little bit of a lump in my throat. And there's some things that Andrew and I have talked about doing already that we think we can push that number down, but also I was talking to Lyn about it later in the day. It's like we don't want to be in a position where we're overpromising and underdelivering on budget. And so how you know you want a project that you're comfortable with, but you don't want to keep scrunching that number down to a point where you don't think you can actually deliver on that number. So at the end of the day, a lot of variables out there and I want to wanted to express that in just this way so that uh maybe it gives you kind of uh a line of sight to how we're feeling about it and if you can share how you're feeling about this project, it'll better inform us how to take our next steps as we deliver that draft floor plan and cost estimate to you uh this summer. >> So I have a question here, a timely question. Mhm. >> So we're talking about [clears throat] the [snorts] current plan year is 2028 and we're talking about that sanitary and water is expected to be here in 2027, right? So then what So then what are we bidding in 2026 that we have? Is that what you said? We have to bid something in 2026. >> No. >> Oh, okay. I missed there. >> Yeah, we're delivering like the design of the building to you this summer. >> Okay. So fundamental like right now we have starting the project in 2028. So you could you know you'd probably want to bid it in under this current plan you'd want to bid it in fall of 27 to capture that that best bid environment and then wait through the winter. So you didn't have to do winter conditions and then start in the spring of 28. But there's a narrative to you could start later if you don't think the timing is right. you could start earlier if you think the timing is never going to be better. There's a kind of a whole spectrum of decisions that you could make. >> So if the we're anticipating the water and sanitary is going to be ready in 2027, is there are we looking there's again a variable that that gets pushed back to 2028 >> or there won't be ready for us to get in because I'm just >> Yeah, I mean not based on kind of our current planning. We're planning on uh we've told uh Summergate um what's it September of 27th when they should plan for water and sewer. >> Okay. >> And we're anticipating about a year build on a public service facility. [clears throat] So if you started in uh the spring of 28 to be, you know, ready in 29. If you started in the spring of 27, it would be >> needed to be hooked up in the spring of 28. So, I don't think you're and that based on our current timing, there's not probably a situation that's out of the council's control. I mean, you could say we're not going to extend the water and sewer and then there's a domino of [snorts] impacts, but we couldn't get a project completed fast enough for you to be without water and sewer at this point. >> Okay. I just was curious because the world happens sometimes, >> correct? And [laughter] so if we Okay, so if you were talking about bidding this then in 2027 and we were just talking about spring or fall, which is better, right? That was the year frame. >> Well, it could be. I mean, I don't want to be presumptuous. I mean, right now based on your current plan, it could be uh fall 27 to to start in 28. What? >> There's a whole list of ways that you could take it based on your cost sensitivity and how you view the need for public services. >> So, if we're looking at spring to fall in the same year and a million a million dollar price hike, then does it make sense to fit it into the next year for spring? That gives us more time in 2027 because it says it's not available till late 2027. I don't know that that the building because are we going to does that need to be in then before the building even begins for construction? >> No, they could just have it at the I mean I think >> the fundamental question I think for the council side is if you could you wrap your arms around the idea of starting earlier is that like spring of 27 if the boxes were all checked or is that premature? I just I I'm not advocating. I'm introducing. So, I just want to be clear about that. >> I have a question. Could the building be used without >> water? Like, is it a phase? Like, could you just use it for storage or I mean, what's the minimal I want to say like minimal viable product? >> Probably wouldn't get occupancy if there's no water cuz you're going to get a need for fire protection. That's kind of the big thing for >> So, there's nothing you can use it for before then? >> No. And again, I'm not looking for the console to like >> store salt. Maybe you could store salt. [laughter] >> Not inside a brand NEW BUILDING. >> NO, NO, I don't [laughter] materials. >> So, Brent, this seems like >> I'm not want to put words in your mouth here, but this seems like a really simple question. Do we want to get started as soon as we can when we're coming off of a 20% 19% cost increase on our levy because of a time delay? Why wouldn't we want to go as soon as we can? I mean, the the water the utilities is going to drive that a bit. But if we're ready to go getting bids so we can start in the spring of 27, why wouldn't we do that? Why would we want to introduce a million dollar uh in cost uh increase because we want another six months to to think about it? >> Yeah. I mean it's a to your >> is that the question? >> Yeah. I mean to fine-tune it's this is kind of a sensitivity analysis if you will cuz and public buildings are can be a major source of conflict in communities. We've all probably know of examples. And so, um, I think we do a good job of being deliberate, but we're inside these walls. And so, I just I wanted to use this as a touch point to see like, okay, >> is this like a >> we are we want to see this go, move, do all check all the boxes, but like this is something we're committed to, or is it like, yeah, we we're interested. This is kind of a wait and see. Keep bringing us the next steps. I just kind of want to get a >> if you feel comfortable. >> I'm committed and want to get going. That's my hope. >> Yeah. What is it possible we'd have this scenario where um I'm committed, I want to get going. We start building as much as we can and then we get to a point where we're ahead where whatever structurally we have things happening but we don't then we're stalled until we get water and then maybe for like 6 months the building is just like empty half done. >> Is that a possibility? Just one point of clarity that I will make is this the sewer and water service is coming off of the same trunk utilities we're sending to the sewer field. >> So that that's all tied together. That's one thing at the end of the day. >> So the only real risk from a utility standpoint is if that piece went completely sideways and we didn't have a project coming up the hill in 2027. But we do. >> Yeah. I mean, they've >> with or without the county road improvements. I mean, we're >> I think we're committed to get getting utilities up the hill. >> The only way that you are without water and sewer is if the council doesn't move to do that water and sewer project. >> Mhm. >> Is there a negative [snorts] to the city to starting on this timeline? I mean, what is there negative? like what >> I would say if we we get you the plan, you get comfortable with it through the remainder of the summer and in September, uh we kick off a robust community engagement. So you have September, October, November, you could even go into December. You could do like um a third of the year, four months of community engagement in January, February. You could do um the capital plan, public hearing. Uh you could get Ortel started on final plans and I mean you could fundamentally be like ready to like bid this thing out like May, April, May of 27 if you just said okay pending up community engagement and response from the community. Four months of that is is where we're going. But the again this is the worst case. This is 35 million. If you got a plan back that said, you know, 35 million in July, again, I'm not asking you to do it, but I'm just >> introducing I'm putting you on the shallow end of the pool so you get comfortable with the water. >> Like those are the types of decisions you don't have to make tonight, but I just I wanted to like tee up for you cuz you're going to get that plan in June, July probably, right, Andrew? And those are the types of that's the type of like feedback after you like again not that meeting but as we go into the summer by like Labor Day I think it would be helpful to have like a strategy from the council of like this is our vision pending engagement with residents. We want to see how they feel. But residents are going to want to know how fast you want to go with this because that'll dictate the tax impact cuz we'll do analysis based on how you know we'll probably get a calculator so people can put their own values. I feel like we're putting a lot of effort or thought into the resident feedback because >> as we should >> as we should but also if the biggest risk is we start too soon like we we can't quite figure out the perfect time to to get the bid start and then know when the utilities will catch up. If we start and it ends up being we started early or uh it would sit empty or sit half done. There's no scenario for that. That's what Brent said. There's no scenario. If we start in 2027, it's going to take a year to build that building. The utilities will be in there in the fall of 2027. >> Yeah. I think that like the this is like by Sterns County passive aggressive is like, are we, you know, are you really ready to do this type of thing? Cuz it's like it's one of the things like we've talked about for a long time. It's a lot of money. It's a big decision. I felt like the same way when we were doing the city hall project of like, you know, you study and study, you do all this engagement, then it's like a it's like, okay, we're going to do it. This is crazy. This is, you know, >> and so like I just want to get you >> I just watched it last night movie chase. [laughter] >> It's getting you used to that or getting you ready to have that conversation because it is a big choice. Okay. I was thinking like there was a scenario that I was playing out [clears throat] where it's like I would be happy to answer yes, we start early because we're saving whatever x amount of money, but that's >> this isn't a timing thing. Okay. Um no, I'm I kind of felt like we already had made the decision to at least for me, I committed to move forward with >> in >> the plan already in the um and to get the preliminary work in the that we're kind of balling back and forth is >> go out for bid in early 2027 or late 2027 I think is what we've narrowed it >> early 2027. >> Early 2027. >> Okay. Got you. Mine is early 2027 or early 2020. I don't I mean I don't know [clears throat] if we're going to if spring is the time to bid, it would still be cheaper the spring of 2028 than the fall of 2027. It sounds like >> I don't think so. That's what Tara is telling us is that Tara is telling us every year that we wait >> that cost escalation keeps going up and compounding. So that's >> that's the tough part about this. >> Okay, cuz the way I was from just what was discussed like 2026 we're [laughter] here and spring fall's here but oh spring could maybe be of 2020 could be in the middle somewhere. >> If we could bid it now it'd be great, right? You don't have I mean if you could have bit 10 years ago >> it's just always one of those things right like >> I mean some of it's kind of relevant to inflation though like that's I mean everything goes up incrementally like that. So I mean it is big I think I think we just move forward and I guess the numbers come back. It's it's a big scary project. We've been through big few big scary projects. Oh, here comes another one. >> I mean, I just keep coming back to the next slide that Brent has, which is the text or sorry, one more after that. >> But wait, we're not there yet. Let's keep talking. >> Well, I I know, but it it's I guess it might be there. That's Brent found it. I keep hearing from residents that they are really concerned about this project pricing them out of Carver. Current residents thinking that they might have to move. >> I hear that too. >> And that that is concerning to me. Some of it's hard because I've worked in growth cities before also and this is such a pain point of any city who just kind of starts to hit that 10,000 mark because you've outgrown that little teeny town and you have to have these big things that are coming and I mean I hear the same things. So I don't know what what else do we take out like not I don't >> but but part of the problem too is I'm not just hearing it from longtime residents. I'm hearing it from my neighbors >> who have only been here 5 years. >> What I'm saying then is are there things outside of these big projects that we dial back as a city because we've got to we've got to I don't know take take a break somewhere and what where is that? do street projects get pushed back another year or I'm not mount hope that one [laughter] is desperation but you like do we start looking to say maybe we just can't afford it like my my pockets are getting too light here so do we say maybe some of these other big chunks that we had planned for maybe they have maybe they get pushed out a little bit to take some pain off of how much is coming out and I'm not sure what those are but I've thought about that too cuz we've got some really big things happening that really do need to happen. But then are there some of these other things that we just have to say as a city that we can't afford right now? >> Brent, as we're balling around when in 2027 for purposes of narrowing down the discussion right now, I is this graph accurate or would that bump happen in 2028? >> Yeah, this this graph reflects um a $35 million project with a 2028 start date. So, >> okay. uh fall of 27 bid number I mean it's all contingent upon that $35 million number and just from me memory I think 22 of that is general fund of that 35 and it's like water is like maybe nine and sewers the rest so there's a growing just because that's the nature of >> public services you know a key and one of the great things about this slide is like the 2027 and county budgets are really important for how to like navigate how you're going to prepare for that if you choose to move forward with public services in in that way because you you know I think there's an opportunity to eliminate a little bit of that roll roller coaster effect and kind of flatten that out and start maybe saving in advance for some levy payments um using that as like either putting it toward the project or onetime capital to bring some of those numbers down. >> I have a question. So, if we we know that we have some big developments coming here, right, that are going to put a lot more money into our tax base. Does that flatten out if we wait another year and some of those start coming on the rolls or are we going to see that big jump? >> Does this anticipate the development? >> Yes. >> Okay. So I mean that's why it fundamentally goes down in those back years. >> Um and I think if that if that inflation number was smaller you could put yourself in a position where it could be close but we're you know just based on what we're seeing or what our history is we're not going to be we're not going to collect 1.7 million a year in additional revenue without it impacting other things. So again, that's why this is so >> complex. >> Are you do you have an opinion on the timeline? >> Uh what I will say is if we are going to break ground in 20 if we're going to break ground 2028. I agree with Eric. I see no reason why not to bid earlier to try and get that smaller number. But my concern is with are we Are we putting our ourselves and our citizens in a position by moving forward this with this project in 2028 that is going to make it financially very very difficult for the people who live in the city? >> Just to clarify, I don't think we are saying bid in early 2027 to break ground in >> well sorry bid in early 2027 to break ground. I'm I'm saying that timeline that give me that year 6 month that that's a pretty narrow window for deciding to break ground 2027 2028 end of 27 beginning of 28. So if if we're committed to doing the project in that time frame, yeah, bid earlier and save the 1.7 million. But I'm concerned about the project in general. I don't know that there's any one of us sitting around this table that isn't >> concerned about what an investment this is going to be. I mean, this is probably the biggest conversation that we've had of this deck tonight. >> Um, and >> unfortunately, the longer we wait, the more expensive it's going to be. My only thought is I want to make sure that we have and what you laid out is fine, but I want to make sure that we have a really robust um resident engagement cycle in this. And then I'm also thinking like where do we layer in the levy projects resident engagement process because I think for as long as we've been working on that and how we know and it's always been a goal. I don't want to lose sight of that because I bet that our residents have perhaps lost sight of it unless it's somebody who's been talking to Aaron and his crew, you know, a little. >> We're planning on doing that in this summer like June, July levy, and then the public facil or public services facility would be in the fall. >> Okay. Yeah, I like that. I think you know this need and this there's nothing about this that's a want. We've all been through the public services building. We literally watch how skinny it is and how you have to like shimmy to get through there. Um, this is definitely a need and I think if we can save I think we need to try to save as much money not only on this but also kind of skinning down the budget to figure out what we can do to help reduce that bump. Um, and I think that this is the the time because we have a bunch of development that's coming into Carver and it's going to be the little example of we're talking about that those pie pieces that keep getting smaller as these houses and these families come into our community. So, um, it's going to be 1 whatever $3 million if we wait 6 months in 2027. Who knows what it's going to be if we wait until 2028. It hurts my head to think about what it'll be if we wait until 2029 or anything beyond that. Like, so it's never going to get any less expensive. >> I do want to follow up something with what Kayla was talking about though. So, when we're talking about we need these big projects done and we all agree and we all agree that this is it's painful. Nobody wants to add more. Um, when it comes to our our taxing, can you go to that slide we were just on? Thank. Yep. So, by us saying, "Okay, yep. It's painful. We don't like it." We're still saying go ahead with it. So, to say it's too much and we we don't want to have to do this is one thing, but I don't want it to be lip service that we just say okay that we just we don't want to, but okay, we all say I and we go forward. So, what does what are options of different things in our budgeting that can come out to flatten that curve a little bit and what can get pushed back a year or two? Um, again, maybe it is some of the street maintenance. Maybe it's something what are some big chunks that we are that we have in our budget right now that we can look at to say maybe maybe that has to wait. We just can't have it all right now because I don't want to lip service the community by saying, "Oh, we have we all agree that it's too it's expensive and that, you know, it's really hard." And then not go any further to look at what could maybe help flatten that out a little bit. >> Well, that's a good segue. That's exactly what this exercise is supposed to be cuz we'll give you each of these buckets and then you can say, you know, uh, like that, but that could get pushed back. So that one needs to get pushed up, etc. That's kind of we're playing around in the sandbox trying to figure that out. I would also add like once we get that number number narrowed down and we'll present you the night that you get uh like the floor plan and the exterior and stuff, we'll give you an idea of what that tax impact would be like on an average household. So that I mean looking at this um you're not going to be able to tell if that's 50 bucks or 500 bucks or something in between. Um so we owe you that as a part of that deliberation process. >> Okay. >> And then I'll just add that once we get all of the puzzle pieces put into the model um we'll get a draft and then it'll kind of redo all of these numbers up there based on all the assumptions and the new market values and everything. So >> So yeah, we can show you this is what you currently have. This is the proposed update and you can kind of compare and contrast the impacts and then see if you want to do some adjustments to lower some impacts or however you want to manipulate it. >> Okay. Okay. >> Great discussion. That was helpful for us and for me. >> Great. I feel anxious. [laughter] >> WE GOT EVERYBODY'S BLOOD. ONE OF US FEELING BETTER. We can't think about anything else right now. Well, water [laughter] treatment plan keep on coming. >> Uh, so, you know, this is something that when we get to that 29 or 2030, you know, we'll be talking about this is something that we've talked about maybe for the last eight or nine years. Um, so estimated cost about $18 million. That includes the construction of two new wells. Uh Aaron and Andrew and their teams are working on a study to figure out kind of the best location and where to purchase land for that. Um Erin, would you mind just kind of giving an overview of what that graph depicts on the right and how that impacts uh when we need a future plan? >> Sure. Um so what this is, we call this a a trigger chart. And basically what we're doing is every year we're tracking our max day demand. So the single max day in a given year and those are those red dots. Okay. And what the red solid line depicts is kind of our projected max day demand uh as we move forward. And that's based on the the comp plan um growth projections in our 2040 comp plan. So what Andrew and I are doing is really we want to see those data points every year to see how we're trending against the projection line. And if we, you know, continue to be below the line, that's going to allow us to make decisions of, okay, we can defer this another year or two potentially. But until we see data to support that, um, it's, you know, we can't really make that decision. So again, this 2031 year is based on the the red line growth projected in the comp plan. So if that if growth goes faster, you know, it could potentially be a little quicker or if it continues on this trajectory here like we see below the line, then we're probably going to be okay for another couple years. >> That makes sense. >> Is the shaded bluish area, is that our water treatment plant? Just asking. [clears throat] Um, in this one specifically, it's that the capacity of our wells one through six. >> So, is there an overlay of water? >> We we do have we have a slide that that represents that as well. It's not in this, but yeah, presentation later on. >> So, but teaser. Yeah, >> cuz we're feeling so good. Love to see the sequel. So you can see here where where the red line hits and now we have drill well seven in 2027 because you know the demands would surpass the the capacity of our wells. >> Okay. >> 202 what 2025 max day was 1.4 million. So >> so this is a >> a representation of what's in your current plan. So you can kind of see how you know water, sewer, storm water rates, etc. are impacted by your current plan documents. This is a snapshot. It actually goes out through uh 2035 the current plan. And so just kind of giving you a flavor. You can saw the property tax manager. There's a ton of information uh in that. and Lynn and uh Tammy and Jess do a great job of kind of summarizing that I would say in bite-size uh pieces of information. So, um and then a little preview of based on what you have in your existing uh long-term plan. This is what you have planned for capital. Um and again, all these categories are going to be explained in future presentations. Uh but to uh what council member Conrad was sharing, you can kind of see how like street maintenance is bumping up. And so as you view that presentation and look at this data, you can see um how that uh impacts um the budget. The we have a separate separate levy amount for our capital expenditures now. So that um has a direct impact to uh what your annual levy would be or will be. >> What is facilities 30,000? >> Uh so that is um half of the what we expect for church by the river to uh paint reside doors etc. and we're going to do the other half uh uh of that budget in 2027. >> But other facilities could be anything from like um up at the bus the bus station or >> correct. >> Yeah. New carpeting for this building someday. >> Yeah. >> But th that 30,000 is specifically was specifically dedicated to the church by the river. That 45,027 is all for the we're anticipating that project is 75,000. Any more discussion? We've kind of gone through it as we talked about as we >> Yeah, that's great. >> What's the $75,000 part? Sorry, I don't have all that information right now. >> Uh, so that [clears throat] that's more building a fund balance. I think your first project was a shelter replacement in 2029 or 2030. >> Yes. >> So, you're building fund balance to do a bigger project. Okay. >> Okay. >> Got what you need from us on that? >> Yeah, that's great. >> Okay. Um, let's talk about the 10ear staffing plan update, Mr. Mark. >> Yeah. So, this is like this is an opportunity for some uh feedback from the council. So, I'm going to um do a high level, but I can get as much into the weeds as you'd like. I'm going to focus uh I'm going to start with a focus on some of the changes and highlight those. Uh so, we moved a public services technician has been adjusted uh from a Jan one to a July month start. You'll see that kind of uh weaved into a couple of those. That's a way to provide some budget and levy relief rather than funding a complete position. Uh we did that for the sheriff's uh deputy position, moving that back uh by six months so we can do a half of that budget. Uh admin assistant is a reflective of what we feel like is a need or a a need assessment moving that back by two years. Um coincidentally moving the building inspector position up by two. That's largely based or primarily based on uh the need for inspection. So that if any position funds itself and so we'll just continue uh to monitor that. Um I'll get a little bit into the building and facilities maintenance technician but we uh we feel like there's an opportunity at uh by the time we get to 2033 where it' be primarily a cost savings actually when you get to what our costs are for outsourcing that work. And then the new a new position in 2036 uh for information technology which is again if you remember kind of the slides from the previous one as a conceptual spot if you think about uh what technology needs were back in 2016 to what they are today to what they might be in 2036. Um I could be a robot doing that work. [laughter] Who knows? Um just want to kind of focus on kind of the the plan summary. we updated these tables. Um so estimating our population to be around 13,000 uh in 2036. Uh so you have a 72% increase in population over that 10 years and uh really trying to keep pace with that with staff so that we're not exceeding that. You can see the breakdown by department uh based on our current state to that future state. Um, and then some of the some of the stuff uh that we added new uh and Lynn and Ashley and Mallerie were a big help with this, but we added some data just on our peer city comparisons. And so you can uh see kind of where we track of employees per capita. So um you know there was when I first started there was quite a bit of a a narrative that the city was overstaffed based on our population. Um, and as you can see now, we're probably on the like the lower end as far as, you know, where we're at for employees per capita. Um, with Delano, Wakonia, Corkran, etc. Um, having a bigger number. And then, um, >> did you, is this the first time we're seeing this? >> Yes. >> Okay. It is super helpful. There was there would easily be a chance that this was shown before and I just didn't remember. So, [laughter] >> brand new. >> Yeah. So you can see 2036 is is would be as if you planned for and implemented everything that's in this uh policy or in this draft plan for staffing again. So that first two years is kind of budget conversations. Year three to four, you know, really critical review. Once you get past year four, uh that's where it gets a little fuzzy. We're making our best guess based on the data that we see. It's kind of a snapshot in time. So, we're not offering those are perfect predictions or will be how this plan is going. Um, just kind of doing a general year by year. So, this would be the second year in a row we would have no full-time uh staff ads and that's in I would say I would offer that's intentional based upon uh some of the other capital improvements. Um, uh, we had previously pushed back the mechanic that was based on, uh, Andrew's input that it, you know, doesn't really pay to try to shoehorn a mechanic into our current space. Um, we're starting that technician in July. Uh, I would say like the the big piece for for the council to be thinking about is navigating that fire chief start uh July 1 of 2028. Um, I think there's, as we talked about last year, plenty of arguments to be made that you could, uh, fully support a full-time fire chief today. Um, in a lot of ways, it kind of functions like that, but based on, uh, the history of fire departments throughout the country, they just didn't start off that way, and they're slowly integrating into that. Um, and so that remains unchanged for a fire chief in 2028. Um, and then you can see kind of the balance of the position. So, um, other than what I noted previously, uh, you're not seeing any difference in the plan. Uh, but I wanted to provide a space for the council to provide, uh, input or recommend changes or just, uh, offer perspectives on what you're seeing. >> I have a question. Can you go a couple slides down where you're looking at the fire chief and where the years that the other cities added? [clears throat] >> So if I'm looking at this in Chask and Chan, I mean obviously they added theirs years ago, but is the estimated population on here the population of when they added the fire chief or is that current date? Cuz they're higher than that for current date, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. So that's the the year. So if we're looking at Chazach Conia, which are kind of our like big sisters of cities around here, um when I'm looking at the populations where [music] they started, 23,000 23,000 and then you going down to 12,000 um why why did they wait until because they had to have huge department budgets as well for fire department. So why did they wait so long? Anecdotally, it's a starting back around that time as well that there was a real push to like make that a full-time position. There there wasn't a lot of examples pre20200 of cities having full-time fire chiefs. And so, um, I would offer that it's I I can't speak for them, but from the outside looking, it became kind of a metro wide phenomenon or statewide to like have a full-time fire chief. And so, I'm sure there's uh exceptions to that, but um I would that's why you can kind of see like where Victoria is at, where Wonia, Watertown, etc. I don't know. We can reach out to Chaza and Chan. I know those folks really well and ask them. Um, but that's just kind of a >> Okay. It just makes me curious cuz we're I mean, we were looking here to add one on the very low end of population if we're looking at this um table. Now, I'm very supportive of our fire department, but I also want to be, again, we just talked about budget and things like that. So, if we're on the low end and we didn't want to shoehorn a mechanic into a building that we don't have yet, do we wait for the fire chief until they have the whole building up there, you know, until we basically make that cut. Now, you're out, public works is out here doing theirs, they've got, you know, we've got Andrew, but then we start adding staff out there and we wait to do it here until that whole building becomes a fire station. I'm not saying that that's the best check mark, but that is, you know, that is >> something to gauge by. I just feel like we're when I'm looking at those higher higher population numbers again there might have been something just in the in the way the world was working at the time but also I do feel we're kind of on the low end of population for that if we do start in 2027 on construction of our public services building July 1st they would start by >> yeah I mean >> I know that that's not your primary >> hypothetically that is a great timeline and I hope that it would be on um >> I get what you're I know. I just there's just something about it that seems a tad premature for me. >> Is this are these estimated populations? Are these the cities or the service areas? Cuz we also service the townships. >> Just the cities. >> Okay. >> And but we have a payback agreement from the >> town. Yeah. But it I mean that is a population. >> Yeah. Actually, it would be nice to see that number, too, if we knew how many residents we were covering just I mean outside of Carver cuz typically we're covering them. >> Mhm. >> Whether they're paying us back or not. That's another number. I mean, is it a thousand? Is it 5,000? >> Yeah. It's not a number that's probably incorporated in Chescos and >> I don't think they would have had the same agreement with the surround price [clears throat] at this point. >> So, are we actually really at 12,000 or >> when it comes to fire coverage? >> Yeah. That's all I just It's hitting me again like I just said, it's it's hitting me that it's maybe a tad premature with the population number. >> Any other thoughts? >> I'm concerned about [clears throat] waiting 10 years for an information technology specialist. It really seems to me that efficiency is gained through technology and are we losing the benefit of that by pushing that position out for 10 years? What what efficiencies are we missing out on because we don't have somebody dedicated in that role? >> Well, we Brenda, can you mind speaking to what our current service plan is and how that's how that functions with Laughler? >> Sure. We have Laughler. Um they send a representative. Is it every other twice a month? >> Yeah, >> twice a month. They come out on site for 4 hours and and guide us through some of those things that you're talking about. Maybe the computer's not working right or the internet isn't real connected. But we have somebody come out on site and then we also have help desk support um full-time. >> So to me that's that's great, but that's maintenance of existing systems. that's not really rethinking how a city uses technologies that are available today. And I mean those are fastm moving and I'm not qualified anymore in things that I was qualified a year ago. And so um it's just a it's a question. I I I think the the cost of having somebody in that role, >> city might realize that in savings pretty quickly in in how we may holistically change how we do something. I don't know. But >> yeah, I have a question then because you're the IT guy in the room. Um um so if we look at what we have right now, right? So we've got our web, we've got obviously the day-to-day things, computers, printers, all that kind of stuff. Then we have the does does Laughler have anything to do with our council chambers and how we No. So that >> that's a different vendor for that. >> Okay. Um and then we have the things like you know our social media and our website and things like that >> if we hadations. >> Oh well that's I mean >> I don't know where would we or what do we see this IT person >> taking care of and doing? I'm not against it. I just want to know like if we're kind of at this level, what's the next one push that we would go to and is it necessary? You know, I I think if we had had somebody in this role already five years ago, we'd have moved to different metering system years ago because of the >> may I mean I would say >> those kind of systems. An IT person that works for a city is probably somewhat disconnected from the utility side of life because we have the ska system and all those other things that are going to require a specialist >> where you ask them to be. >> I disagree with that. I think a dedicated IT person is looking at all of those things. What we have now is we have maintenance maintenance of existing systems and that's great and it kind of takes care of status quo. But you know great that you're here to know about modernizing the metering systems but those systems have been around for decades and other cities haven't had to drive out to somebody's house for more than a decade. And what what did that cost us over 10 years? All I'm saying is I think this role is more than maintenance. It is looking at everything that we do, how we do it, how AI plays a role in that. What what can be leveraged? What can be like we look at storing things on a cloud? What else do you uh change in in the way you do something? I'm not proposing the changes. I'm just saying I'm worried that we wait 10 years to bring somebody like this in. And do we talk to cohort cities and say um who have this? What have they done to change the way the city operates? >> Yeah, we've had conversations with other entities about, you know, could we job share, etc. It hasn't uh we haven't connected yet on something that would work, but I think your points are valid. It's just a matter of how you see them as priorities. >> So if so we pay to have people come in and run this system, right, for the council meetings. >> That's a separate thing. But yes, >> right. But we do. But I'm saying if we had an IT person, would we expect that that would they would do that and then that cost would be taken out? That's a communications. >> Like >> I realize that, but it's running. >> Uh I haven't. >> Okay. I'm actually asking Eric is that you would like envision that that all of these things that would kind of the communications but kind of that >> it plugs in it's electrical and it and it makes our world go around for IT stuff or are you considering more just like straight IT or >> so there's ideiation what the city can do but there's also maintenance which we paid for today so some of that cost comes back to us because we may not need law to come out. Sure. >> Every other week and what do we pay for that? >> I want to be mindful. We're just about time. >> I didn't mean to bring up a whole >> Well, it's all [laughter] about Let's hold this over because I think that there are more folks who want to appine on this. I know we didn't hear from you. I didn't get a chance. So, why don't we hold this over? >> Great. >> Uh to the regular meeting. And with that, um we'll hold on to your manager's report as well. >> Sure. that I'd entertain. Oh, and we'll hold on to your council requests. [laughter] >> Well, that was your fault. Um, actually, >> um, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second by council member Conrad, second by council member. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Did I hear you have motion passes? >> Did I hear you have not seen the vacation movies? No, I've seen vacation. [laughter]