to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all 602 we called the meeting to order at 602 uh due to some technical difficulties um I would take an approval of the regular agenda move second there's been a motion by Sean seconded by Rick all in favor say I opposed motion carries the next item up is the consent agenda um does anybody have any questions on that if not I would take a motion to approve the consent agenda so moved second and Bruce made a second May made the motion um any other questions I have one question do we have those bylaws some place those firemen's bylaws are they like on the website or something I will email those out to you I will email those out to you I could have sworn they were attached on there so I will email those out can you also put it in the joint U Drive yeah I can there too okay that's all I had um all in favor say I I I opposed motion carries okay the next item up on the agenda is the public is invited to be heard on matters not on the agenda speakers limited to 5 minutes um I don't see anybody in the audience I did get an email from from an individual right before the meeting and I responded back to him but I told him right close to Six is when this would be um he hasn't uh didn't respond back to me but he had another item going so I don't know uh next item up is the city Engineers projects re update is Chris there okay we got to turn this thing on open you can hear me okay y we can hear you can you hear us uh I can success this time okay yeah that was nice um so uh with you today I have two items one being the city of Engineers project updates um I don't really have too much to go into detail and necess on this on those unless there are questions for me um if there are please let me know otherwise I have my next item on here for the 2024 project okay any questions on the project otherwise go ahead on the item uh next next it I have for you is on the 2024 stream utility project uh so uh with the project nearing completion the next step in our in our process would be to U move on to the assessment hearing um so what I have provided for you is the uh draft of the assessment role and um the assessment arrays to use for the project um I will note in here that the um assessment rates used on the project are the same as were used on the uh 200 and 22 2023 projects so we're holding that 20 that that rate from the last two years as well due to the uh the low bids that were received on the project um so um with that said the uh project uh construction cost is uh amounting about $ 4117 million with the overall project cost at uh $4 m831 th000 uh and this would be for construction Cost Plus Engineering Cost Plus the uh testing costs so if um Council elects to proceed with the assessment hearing that would be held on as proposed to be held on 6 P at uh 6 pm on Monday October 21st um which has generally been when we've held those meetings the second uh second council meeting in October um at that time uh residents would have a Time to um you know review their assessments which will be sent to them mail to them ahead of that time if there are any uh objections to the assessments they'd be heard at that time as well um and if uh otherwise we just kind of proceed with the normal role of um finalizing assessments and then they go to um L County and Scott County so I do have a resolution with you here today first I'll see if there's any questions um that you'd like me to answer first are there any questions for Chris otherwise I would take a motion to uh order preparation of proposed assessment calling for a hearing second I said I would take a motion so moved I thought you made the motion my fault don't you want a second sure okay so there's been a motion by Sean seconded by Rick um any other questions all in favor say I I I oppose motion carries and we I think we also need to make a motion to approve the resolution that's what I just okay that's what I just did I'm sorry I didn't I didn't read the number that's okay so it would be this would be the motion resolution 24961 okay the next item on the agenda is I guess Chris are you done I'm done for tonight thank you everybody good night thank you good night thanks Chris okay the next item on the agenda is the property tax levy uh yes so we've had a couple budget discussions now and as we uh discussed at our last meeting we kind of ended the meeting currently sitting at 11.24% over 2024 um as we have disc discussed generally with our PR with our preliminary Levy once it's set you cannot go any higher than that and so we as a council discussed well even though we weren't quite up there um we would put a small bump in there just to make sure that something unforeseen doesn't come up but we have no intentions at this time of going up to the 133% and so um I did approve a resolution there 2491 1602 um setting the 01 setting the 2024 proposed property tax levy at 5,451 715 and scheduling the public hearing um to set the final levy on December 2nd of 2024 and I can stand for any questions you may have at this point um so I just wanted to clarify the resolution number because the resolution number that you just read is the same as the resolution for the street project yep so it probably should be 02 it is 02 on the resolution okay okay thank you for pointing that out what my question to staff would be um I get the 13% and giving you a little bit of a bump but I want to know what the commitment from the staff is to even work hard to get below that 11.24% well I mean it's our commitment we have every year to try to make sure that we aren't wasting wastefully spending while still providing Services I mean we're certainly going to have the more budget discussions going forward Sean and um we can certainly break down if the council is not happy with where we're at and see where we can get but um I mean the budget's currently set up trying to keep as many current Services intact as we can and um we'll have further discussions I guess going into December to do what we can uh to ensure that we're not having wasteful spending no and I I know you guys work hard at that but I there obviously has to be I'm not comfortable with the 11.24% I I cut out in the paper today St Louis County was their Pro their property tax levy was going to go up 7.23 I also read another article that I meant to cut out and I didn't but uh hanban counties is at 5.5 and even Minneapolis and St Paul which is notoriously almost every year the highest one it seems like in the state um are coming in at like 7 and 8% and we're looking at 1 and and so some of this too Sean you have to remember that all of those places likely had an increase last year as well we had zero increase and so um we may see a slight on higher one this year and that's kind of what we talked about in our first meeting just due to um having a year with a 0% increase on our Levy okay well again I like I said I I like giving us a little leeway and whatnot and I look forward to the um upcoming other budget sessions that we're going to or meetings that we're going to have um to try to work that down I just want to make sure that that we're just not going to fall real simply into 11.24% I guess no and I don't think that'll happen because like the dental insurance you're making a recommendation to go with health partners with a 12% you know less 12% reduction in rate so um you know right there but we didn't know that the last meeting and and the potential for the medical insurance also to coming in under budget so so but we we budgeted we budget nothing changed yeah we budgeted based off of no changes not because the council hadn't made that decision yet yep so yeah but again as most years I just want to make sure that City staff realizes that just because we're going to go to 13 and you guys are proposing 11 doesn't mean that we want to still look for TS to get that down correct yeah and I just want to make sure that you guys understand that we've built this out with our current service level and that to obviously at some point was you are lowering a tax Lev you are cutting services as well right understood but sometimes we have to make tough choices so and I think we're all aware of that so okay that's all I wanted to just okay engage your good discussion so um I'll offer resolution 24- 09-16 d02 um for adoption second seconded by Bruce any other questions or discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I opposed motion carries the 2025 health and dental insurance uh yes so as we discussed at the last meeting we didn't quite have all of the information um we had hoped for dental insurance yet um we were able to collect that information um so I guess kind of going through my general recommendations um we did discuss at the last meeting we didn't necessarily need a decision right then um H absolute drop dead decisions would be mid October though hopefully we could get those done sooner that way um we could get start to get open enrollment meetings scheduled uh and whatnot especially if there's a change that way staff could have any questions answered um and have plenty of time to do so so diving into this um my hope is tonight that we are able to come with some sort of decision to move the process along a little bit um and so I guess starting out uh just to kind of re recap um coming out of that meeting my recommendation was to move to a plan and the document should be in there again if you want to look out exactly what these plans are made up of um to a plan known as the Smart Plan shsa uh 3A three aare plan um which I presented as option three uh this plan is similar to our current plan with a few small differences um inclusing including raising the deductible out of pocket max um from 2250 and 4500 up to 3,3 6600 so it does raise about ,000 and $2,000 um respectively across the plans it it also makes the deductibles embedded compared to the aggregate plan we have now uh which basically means that um a single person in a family plan is treated as a single person uh as to how the insurance is paid out um for out of pocket max reasons uh I guess making this move to this plan without any other changes would potentially save the general fund a little over $51,000 um and would save all funds across the city a little over $85,000 assuming all employees um that had Insurance last year collect the exact same coverage this year I guess looking at benchmarks from surrounding communities um shows that setting the out of pockets uh Maxes uh around that level would bring the city's plans pretty close to average um with the information that uh our provider is able to get for us um and I guess when comparing the general premium amounts the city pays um city employees do tend to pay a little bit more than their uh counterparts in surrounding communities so but at this time um I am not making a recommendation on a change to the percentage of the contribution I guess rolling that into then talking hsas we did also discuss HSA contributions uh with this potential savings there is an opportunity for the city to examine um the contributions for city employees um as an opportunity to potentially offset the increase deductibles should the city switch plans and I guess it was presented at that meeting that increasing the HSA contributions from 500,000 to a, 2,000 respectively um would increase spending to the general fund of about $29,000 and all funds about 50 uh we ALS I also presented that going up to 20 or 1,250 and 2500 um would increase spending by about 4,400 or 44,000 and 75,000 respectively um if you coupled this with the change of switching insurance plans it would still lower the end number um and result in a savings of health insurance over last year and I guess when comparing benchmarks with surrounding cities it does show that our city employees are quite a bit more below average in terms of surrounding communities and there is a potential here um to like I said offset the city employees um for having a potential higher out of- pocket max while still saving the city money um and making the city city competitive with surrounding communi so I guess to that end I would recommend um increasing the HSA contribution ution this year to uh 12250 and 2500 respectively finally the last one that we were talking about dental insurance um ID shared that we had proposals from Delta Dental MetLife guardian and Health Partners um the big question we didn't have was what coverage looked like within the city and we do have that information now um Delta Dental uh which is who our current carrier is uh did Quote us um at an 8% increase for 2025 keeping are plan the same and they are available at all five Dental businesses that I'm aware of if there I apologize if I missed one um but uh I believe there are five in doing the math here in town uh and Delta Dental would be accepted all of them Health Partners um did Quote us at a 12% decrease on the plan on uh rates as well as holding that rate for uh 2026 as well um and all five Dental businesses are accepted um in network here in town though they would be to level two on their proposal looking at their proposal level two is still I would say have a competitive advantage of the Delta Dental Plan in terms of lower yearly deductibles as well as um higher outof pocket maximum annually uh MetLife according to their own directory is only accepted at three of the five Dental establishments in town as is Guardian so even though uh guardian and MetLife do um offer a lower rate I would argue that especially with health partners coming competitive to those two um that we could probably remove th those two out of the consideration and I guess then looking at it I would recommend going forward with Health Partners at a 12.6% decrease over uh 2024 and locking that that rate in for two years years um which would save annually uh up a little over $112,000 ultimately the effect on this budget if these three moves that I've recommended are made would result in a savings of almost $20,000 for next year which would um lower the 2025 Levy by 0 42% so did you say 20,000 almost 20 it's $9,975 three together could you review that it just seemed like the number seemed smaller than I I was trying to add up in my mind as you went through this yep so the health insurance oh the sheet in front of me now that was a savings of 50 or 60 or something yep so the health insurance would' be saving 51,0 581 okay if you add back the HSA contribution if you go to the 1250 2500 add back 44,46 44,000 yes thought there was a 20,000 number you can't have no yeah yeah so then you add back so you so you subtract 51 add back 44 so if you're just going off those rough thousands what is that about seven seven yeah seven and then you subtract the 12 and change from the dental to get to the total Savings of $1,970 and what was the dental savings again the dental savings was $1,852 these the same numbers as last meeting uh yes well so the HSA savings is a little bit different um after reviewing B initially last I mean it was on the sheet uh that we talked about but we are kind of more honing in on the 1,000 2,000 instead of the 1250 and 2500 after kind of reviewing the benchmarks um and what savings could be uh coming down to it I guess at this point I'm formally recommending the 1250 2500 um I'm not sure if you continued your thought there is this different than what you we talked about last time that would be the only the the numbers were shared initially as I was thinking through this my the the discussion point last week was kind of looking at more than 1,000 for singles 2,000 for family as I've compared bench Ben marks and thought about it over these last two weeks my recommendation tonight is was still on the sheet last night but it is to go with the 1250 2500 for the HSA okay that wasn't clear to me as you went through that okay so okay yeah the number seems smaller than last time so this get us down to 10% there's yeah so this would get us down to 10.8% roughly um which is about the difference between the two HSA plans is about $155,000 and I basically made myself the commitment that I could find $155,000 somewhere to make those the same go going into 2025 so how much is the additional subtraction for the deduct or the HSA from what we talked about last time about difference does the 1250 and two or whatever about 15 ,000 I guess I'm surprised that you that we're talking about it different since we've talked about her last time and I guess it I I didn't really get a feeling of where anybody was Landing last time and I I said I I agreed with it but but we didn't have the benchmarks last time either did we well yeah we had that the only thing that we were waiting on last time was the um the clinics like who would accept thank you yeah obviously was absent no and and yes I guess how I've been looking at this has changed from last meeting I'll certainly it's it basically was me sitting on it for two weeks more and digesting it um that that got me to recommending the the peach option I think as we or salmon option as we described it last time okay so what are with this new information tonight what are we we're approving this still going to be in the budget I would be looking for some sort of hopefully approval so that we could communicate this information back to the insurance company and continue down the insurance path I guess I'm fine with the insurance part and communicating that with them um at what point though do the employees have to help assist in the in a 15% increase um so so so with this change private sector with this CH plan there's only going to be a 4.7% increase that that 15% increase right would go away if we change plans it would move to a 4.7% increase and and that would be even even moving to the 1250 2500 option the employee is still having to pick up more out of pocket like I know and I know and it sucks I agree nope and so so and so even with an HSA contribution the employee is still having to potentially shoulder more out of pocket to answer your question of where does the employee have to pick up that that is an area where the employee would potentially have to pick up more than if we just said nope we'll stick with the same plan and increase HSA contribution right well that's just it the city's pumping into the HSA that they can use to help offset that correct but it but but if you if you figure let's just take a single person right um right now if the the out of pocket or let's call the deductibles because it's the same thing deductible of 2250 with an HSA contribution of $500 by the city that means that a single person would have to come up with ,750 right if they hit that Max MH now if we let's say we change plans to the smart option three so it is 3,300 is what the deductible now is um even if the city increases the contribution that it pays into the HSA to 1250 uh the employee now instead of having come up with ,750 is having to come up with $2,50 so they the employee is still having to basically eat $300 that they didn't have to eat in 2024 so so so there is the employees even with the contribution Max that I've showed here are still having to take a piece out of that pie okay so we're we're essentially saving in the general fund 51,000 but then we're increasing or spending into the HSA 44463 is that correct so really the difference is $7,000 with the yes but then I add in the dental savings is where we get to the total savings yeah I want to separate them a little bit okay let's say yes so we are saving the general fund $7,000 while still the employees are still seeing an increase to what they have to pay out of their pocket but they're not seeing quite as large of an increase and so the city is saving and the employees are not having to take as large of a hit that is where my recommendation is coming from right it is trying to take a bad situation which you admit is nobody likes to see rising cost for anybody but it is trying to help the employees out um admittedly myself less affected by a higher deductible but there are other employees who that is a much larger step right no I understand that too um I guess what I'm wanting to know is when it comes down to finalizing the budget um and I'm not saying this is where we're going to find it but if we need to adjust this somehow are we approving this tonight so this is going to lock in or is this just what the new update with it that we still I know you have to give the insurance I think we'd certainly be I'd like to obviously the HSA can move at any time that that's what this city can do I would warn against taking too long because there are certainly employees who have options of looking at their health SP their spouse's health plans and if the city kind of leans one way and then move directions later maybe an HSA contribution or a amount percentage of cont or contribution to a uh premium you have employees who said well it would have been nice to know that we're were going to do that back in September I would have jumped over to my spouse's plan that makes more sense now this way or that way right and so I mean My Hope Is with the insurance is to kind of get this stuff figured out so employees can make the best options for themselves on where that they need to go for 2025 because open enrollment is uh early October uh so open enrollment I believe is planned for late October late okay for and when is our next budget meeting have we said that so the next formal budget meeting would be October whatever that first meeting in October is was it second third so we would still have time if we need to somehow make changes to this I guess I would like I said I I recommend if we can come up with a decision tonight I think that is best for our employees and helping them figure out their own health futures for 2025 do we have the insurance numbers we have what 52 employees how many employees do we have 52 53 something and how many are using Insurance both single and family do you know that number off top of your head Robin about 49 to 50 okay most of them right because it's a good deal compared to the private sector and their spouses and whatever else so I get that doesn't it's not easy choices to do this but in the real world this in the private sector these are choices that people have to make and we have to wait sometimes and the owner of the company doesn't he's trying to figure out how I mean just because that happens if an owner company does that that doesn't mean we have to do that to our no no no no no I get it but I'm just saying the insurance is so good that 59 out of or 40 out of the 52 employees are using City Insurance well and and that's a wonderful thing to keep employees with us I no absolutely um and again I don't I don't feel that what we've been presented is is out of line or unrealistic by any means um and in the long run we are saving money and Josh said that he is committed to finding a $15,000 reduction in some other area of the budget to offset right I'm still worried about the 11.24% that we're sitting at or the 10.8% understand understandably and I'm just saying that we have always been very very good to our employees and have taken care of our employees and we should autmatically as we should but I'm still saying there eventually there becomes a time where the taxpayer just can't keep funding everything else because they're working in the priv private sector and their insurance is going up and they're expected to pick up a portion of it and and again Sean we are expecting like like I know this for this first year yes I know this is the same debate that we have often in budget sighting what I'm getting at though is I don't want to lock into something that now when we're looking to when we put the whole budget together now we've taken a major chunk out of it with the benefit part of it and there's no way to move because you guys have already locked in with your insurance company and whatever else so that's why I was asking the question is this something that we definitely need to lock in today or can we keep this on the table as we move forward in our budget discussions to look at this this and every other section arguably the insurance portions would need to be locked in today HSA contribution like I said is not locked in until the end of the year that being said I would still highly recommend not changing on employees because I think you'll have employees who are more upset if it changes than anything just because they basically removes their ability to go look at their spouse's plans that's what I'm asking did they though because I know plenty of people that change at they theoretically might yes but I'm just saying that there's again I find that really hard to believe if 49 out of 52 people are taking city as opposed to their significant others if if we raise deductibles that may make it more competitive with spouse's plan right um potentially even saving more money if they jump to The spouse's plan and then poti could like however you'd like to vote it Sean we'll just leave it at that we are clearly on don't get frustrated Josh these are legitimate questions that I have to I understand that answer the tax but you I I mean we're going to have to make a decision next the next meeting anyway because we have to we have to or by the next meeting because we have to tell them because the plan starts October 15th right or open and roll that that was the absolute deadline to get them stuff back we'd like to October 7th okay yeah so yeah I if we'd like to so give employees as much time as possible well I'll make go ahead well as as my viewpoint was the last meeting my viewpoint is to do this sooner than later I prefer that we come to some understanding today it's just a timeliness is I think important dealing with the employees but I'm a little taken aback by the changing in your thinking about the um what we had talked about last meeting but because I had thought that all we were talking about is who takes who's in network and who's out but when you say that you're going to re or or support this with $15,000 or the cut somewhere else this ha HSA contribution is probably something that has a lot of permanency to it so are you suggesting you can find a $15,000 deduction in expenses or increase in income that's permanent or have that same kind of lasting availability to us without changing Services as you just got done mentioning or or I mean because no no I mean this is kind of a a whirlwind thing it's not a lot of money but it's still very important because it's got so much stickiness to it and we don't like to flip-flop around with them benefits and things like that but uh I guess it's a small material not number but I I'm still concerned about getting it the 10% not 10.8 or something like that type of thing so and I I don't want to see us make a $155,000 adjustment just came out of savings or something just to solve this issue if we're really talking about apples apples it's going to be have something permanent and I didn't see any apples that we could just grab off the tree to save us $15,000 but maybe I'm just not aware of it but I I guess the explanation I'm hearing is that you just had a lot of reflection over the last two weeks and felt that this was a better number that that yes but I guess I would rather offer compromise of the difference in between and try to get something approved tonight but that that's my position on it so instead of a th000 versus 12200 split the difference in both of those well I'm just going through you do have neighboring communities here and not that I'm concerned because the elected officials in Prior Lake or Jordan or bplan can answer to their residents this is that's that's their deal that doesn't mean we necessarily have to do that um but our deductible going to 60 600 Jordan's family deductibles at 9,000 um and I'm not proposing that by any mean I'm just saying there are cities that have made tough choices too and I'm sure they care about their employes just as yes Sean and I guess my belief is sometimes that tough choice is to say you know what maybe we do have to have a little bit higher increase like the tough choice doesn't always have to hit city services Andor employees sometimes that tough choice may need to go the other direction and for the 14 years that I've sat on here it's almost been that so it has gone the other way and we've just and yet somehow I mean for 14 years that Levy increase has been kept very very low up until the last couple years yes I know and I'm concerned that the trend is starting to go the opposite way um we do have a lot of new growth coming into this community in the next year too which should also help um bring in more taxes but okay well if we have to lock into this I I don't think we necessarily have to do it tonight but if you guys have concerns I'm going to make a motion that the city council go ahead with the recommendation of the city administrator as presented in the um memo memorandum is there a second on that second there's been a motion of second any other discussion I'll be voting opposed because I was just trying to offer a compromise in between and it's hard to judge when you when you the deductible HSA and everything is separated it would be nice to have a better and these are great numbers I appreciate all the works I'm not diminishing any of that but to just look at the real life situation circumstance of an individual person what's the difference between Jordan new pra blah blah blah blah blah similar to you get with your insurance packets you get when you get the insurance with you know gives you an example of a diabetic and da da illustr so are you talking about the actual benefits of yeah and then you can subtract well how much does HSA how comparatively between plans and kind of see what does this person pay in this circumstance but anyway okay any other questions or discussion otherwise all in favor say I I I opposed I I okay motion failed so do you want to offer a compromise there on the HSA we going to try to do the numbers okay which is very little I so you would mind correcting me if I'm wrong it's 1125 and what's family uh 2500 be 2250 if you're splitting the 2,000 and the 2500 make a motion to to approve the recommendations except for the h say contribution changed from single 2125 and family 2250 okay there's been a motion I'll second there's a second by Maggie wait let me just can I want some explanation here a little bit because this is all coming real quick here so again I wanted to kind of see it in the bigger context of the entire budget um at a budget meeting not here in the middle of a council meeting where we're throwing different numbers out so Bruce just walk me through it again a little quick your your proposal this is this is a very nominal change from what this presentation was it's just changing last meeting my understanding was we had the individual HSA contribution at $1,000 increasing from 500 so doubling the contribution if I'm correct that's correct yes so and Josh recommended tonight to increase that to 12250 so I'm suggesting that we just raise it to 1125 phenominal difference I would oh that's your compromise between your last week I supported what we discussed last meeting the the $1,000 which doubled it um but so the single would be 1125 right I get it now and then and then family 2500 is that what you 2250 250 I'm sorry thank you and then this essentially locks Us in from further negotia or looking at it in a bigger context well the HSA I think is still on the table okay no it wouldn't be if we approve this okay no I I okay I guess if you want to I understand I I thought that that was always going to be part of the I think when it was presented last meeting the idea of G basically giving back most of the savings was part of that when we talked about a $1,000 HSA so the saving it's just that the savings will be bigger now instead of being 7,000 it'll be a little bit bigger yeah and I'm not I'm looking at the bigger picture too and trying to keep it at the 10% and how we're doing that and whatever we can do to help with that but okay that's just where I okay I think it's not a it's not a material difference no I I I understand where you're splitting the difference there um and again I didn't you know the plan isn't to just penalize workers it's just to get them to a St I don't view any of this as penalizing anybody right but I I'm not sure that others don't you know uh in a sense that oh they're now I'm going to have $300 extra out of you know that we are contributing a little bit more I guess what I'm saying is is you know what I I I follow your compromise and I think um I'll be happy to support that just so the employ city employees can get an opportunity to be with their significant others and see what might be a better plan I think our due diligence should be at the beginning of the year is take a look at how many people actually switched the plan and didn't because I'm going to guess it's still going to be 59 out or 49 out of 52 because it is such a good plan compared to the two-thirds of people that don't work in the public sector and I tend not to think about just the plan itself because we're looking at a total compensation package that we're hopefully having a goal of being competitive and maybe even oftentimes better and quite often a lot of the times better than the private Market when you look at a total compensation package um and that's partially because the state law requires us to do things as a municipality and and we are my previous experience very City governments are very competitive um with their total package um with compensation and benefits I agree maybe the benefits aren't that great they don't get bonuses though and they don't get other things but that's just my perspective on things so I look at it we want to be in the ball field with being competitive and our turnover certainly in some areas is high but it's not because of compensation typically at least that's what I understand so that's telling me that we're in the ballpark you know I mean we have Police Issue which is a whole different story but generally speaking we don't have a lot of turnover is I think I would I would hate to disagree with you but I will I've done hired more than 10 people since I became Public Works director uh and I have a extremely hard time getting applications I'm just being honest with you so you guys are open and understanding that it's not just police it's uh Street position um Wastewater I I can't even get applications so no it is a big issue to hiring people it's not like when I first started here we were getting 160 application for one Public Works employee position it's not like that I I hate to say but the private sector has caught up to everybody else actually they blew by us um I get people that come in here that just wanted to give me step one I'm just happy to be here if I can't get max pay right away then I I'm not interested because what they're making in the private sector which is great I'm happy for them but it's I just wanted to put that out there it's not easy to get employees anymore it's extremely difficult to get somebody in here so that's all I wanted to say sorry I didn't no I appreciate that it's very good to know I think we are we try to be t or we tried to bring people on it in step that's going to get them in the door I think so we try to do that so we don't start people on step one it very often no we do not but there are times that I can't even make an offer to somebody because what they're making and they need to have a certain pay and I can't offer them that right I mean they come in here they see the step scale and they think they I can exceed the step scale and I can't which that's just how it is so I do miss out on a lot of good employees because of it or good opportunity to bring somebody in but um again then I'll have a Wastewater position that was open for 3 months without one application and then the couple applications I got were not they weren't even they didn't meet our standards to come in even so it's not like we're getting high quality applicants anymore it's just the reality it is right now so okay do you think $125 for HSA contribution make a difference in hiring that's not what I'm that's not why I wanted voice my opinion I just I've heard people say how I mean we like uh somebody leaves we just hire the next person shake their hand and Say Goodbye it's not like it's extremely diff don't mean that but I I do believe that municipality compensation is competitive generally speaking some of the things you're describing is universal in private sector whatever the hard time finding employees are qualified employees it's not just the city in your prey that has that difficulty totally agree with you I It's just tough when right there's job postings out there local surrounding communities that are paying ex $5 more an hour then I can start off one some of my employees right and uh the one thing I will say is usually I can offer them a little bit better Insurance that's all that's just you can see it on the comp on the what Josh put on here with this increase yeah we are going to be that will be I lose that selling point that hey yes we have great insurance at 4500 2250 single now with this increase I lose that I'm just being honest with you I'm hoping I can still work my magic and find employees but it's been very hard obviously for Tim's been short up a cop for two years or whatever I don't know but a long time get I don't have an answer and I don't have full knowledge of everything I just do have some knowledge of some insurance I see that I've had other people had and I know the price and it does seem to be competitive with the stuff that I just had in the private market and what other people I know are this school district as an example it's in the ballpark that's so I I don't see it's maybe it's not the greatest insurance but not bad ours oh no I'm not saying that this is bad I'm just giving you the Outlook all I I really just wanted to speak up about how hard it is to find employees it's not as easy as it used to be and yes I not here to steal Josh Josh the spot sorry so we got a motion on the table and I'm GNA call the question all in favor say I I I I I opposed I I'd like to take a look at it cares thanks for your comments Matt thank you all right the next item is the tax abatement for 54 unit market rate apartment and call for a hearing so you you going to take that yeah I'll take it I'll provide a general overview we do have Michaela huitt from Baker Tilly online as well to provide any uh other backing information should you have any questions that I can't answer or Josh for that matter but yes we are here in front of you tonight looking free to call a hearing um this would be taking place at the September 21st city council meeting um Josh and I were at the school board meeting at their workshop um last Monday and they called for a hearing actually to occur next Monday night at their meeting on the 23rd I believe and then we will be at um lur County to see if they can call a hearing uh for their um board meeting in um for the date on that but it'll be in October but in a nsho what we're looking at for the eert um 54 unit apartment building as you've been U hearing about since uh back in April um when the council voted to um submit an application for the workforce housing development program from the mhfa uh we had committed at that point to a local match of 290 or 249,900 uh we will hear um definitively on that by the 26th of September which should be next week so we're hoping we get that money brought in but um if you look in the packet uh that Michaela put together and Michaela maybe I'll have you provide a a quick overview on that but um there's four different scenarios in the packet on level of possible um tax abatement the developer is noting a $1.2 million financial gap in uh the project to make this happen and they're saying that without that $1.2 million uh to make this happen that there will be no Project M um we are proposing to bring in the county and the school to share that load um and we've kind of narrowed in on um scenario scenario number four on the handout and um I don't know Michaela if if you got anything you want to jump in on let me know but in a nutshell scenario number four is kind of the worst case scenario if we do not get the mhfa program funding brought in that is basically the amount of we say 100% of city school and County uh tax abatement that would be needed for a roughly 15year time period um if the uh $499,999 mhfa funding is brought in that would uh bring us down between um 50 to 75% I think it would be probably in that 70% range um that each entity would have to contribute to U kind of again spread the uh tax payment for that 15year time period um that kind of in a nutshell what we're looking at um I think the general um support from the school board was um that they're in for their up to 100% level if need be um and Michaela can address this probably further but um you typically have a uh agreement uh between all the taxing entities and um spe oh 60% sorry if we all uh if we get the mhfa money uh brought in um but the agreement typically would spell out um and Michaela again feel free to jump in but uh the agreement we have with each taxing entity uh we would draft it um considering that there would not be mhfa funding brought in and if it is um it could be adjusted to the lower rate which is just just pointed out to me is closer to 60% um for each of the taxing entities that would have to provide the abatement for that 15-year time period so hope that's a decent overview Michaela uh do you have anything you'd like to add to that um or Josh for that matter Michaela sure um thank you Ken you did that was a a great kind of summary overview and and maybe I'll just add you know I think as from what was initially discussed you know that amount has increased based on the developer um further reviewing their financials and their proforma um which is why we wanted to share the um the higher percentage amounts in part if if they don't received that full Grant request or amount that they've requested and um better aligning with what their Gap is maybe the other thing I'll add is these projections are again based on a taxable value of the project upon completion of about 6.1 million um the maximum amount by entity would be included within a tax abatement agreement with a maximum number of years or uh dollar amount whichever would occur first um and there's no inflationary growth that has been factored into the abatement uh revenues over 15 years so if values come in um higher there's annual inflation um that could uh result in a reduction in the number of years um of that pledged abatement so again what's being presented tonight is is simply to call for the the public hearing to consider um participating in in tax abatement um with the expectation that it could be up to 100% of the city's share over 15 years and by the time we have the public hearing um on the granting of the tax abatement we should um based on the based on M mhf's timing for awarding the funding we should know and so the actual terms of the abatement would be um should be solidified at that public hearing meeting okay any questions M I have a question um you mentioned that the you can reduce the number of years is that a discretionary can we can we keep the dollar amount uh the same and for 15 years thereby bringing in more Revenue to the city um so mayor members of the council if the question is um so right now if we're looking at scenario 4 the estimated annual City share of taxes is about 31,000 um 856 so over 15 years um that would be 47 7,837 um what I was referencing is if the the maximum Pledge of the city share is hello go up and you hit 477,000 in say year 11 or year 10 then um the pledge of tax abatement would be done and then the that increased value would go on the city's tax roles um so I'm not sure if that's the question you were asking of as opposed to if we red um you know right now we're assuming 100% over 15 years in the scenario I just mentioned values go up you're still pledging 100% but you would hit that total of the 477,000 in a term less than 15 years um M I think the question is if instead of tracking at the 100% if the city would have the ability to track at the 31856935 um and that's what I wanted to clarify in good clarification that if you can the abatement is very flexible that and I would say these terms have not been um discussed with the developer but you could do another option where if it's 100% for 15 excuse me for maybe five years and then you stagger it down to a lesser percent um and again this is the worst case scenario no grant funding um received but we could also structure it that they get you know no more than the 31 856 and if values are higher that difference would not be levied and would not be provided to them but go on the general tax rules so there's several different options of how the maximum amount would be um could be structured and um I I think what maybe would be helpful is if there's Direction you know on trying to minimize a number of years reduce the percentage um limit the annual amount that will help in um structuring the terms of the abatement agreement when did they start paying this uh Michaela the minute I mean this next coming year or when the Project's completed that's a good question so right now what we've assumed is we're in late 2024 um they would they could begin construction as early as fall of this year um and work and complete the project um by December 31st of 2025 so what we're assuming for the first year of the tax abatement is um the value would be in line online as of December 31st 2025 for uh assessment year January 2nd 2026 and taxes payable 2027 so the first year that we're showing that the The increased value would be online and paying taxes would be for taxes payable year 2027 um and then the abatement would be included in the the fall of 2026 Levy um to reflect that pay 27 year okay if it doesn't start um till next year it just gets pushed back year correct yeah it would I think we would want if if the project materially changes in timing and we're looking at a full 15 years then um you're right that you know we could be looking at pay 28 as the um taxes payable 28 as the first year but if we think they're going to be close to completion by the end of next year by the end of 2025 and a little carry over into 2026 it might be a partial first year and then 14 full years after which is more how tax increment typically works okay thank you I would just like to obviously public hearing is not tonight and so formal decision on this is not tonight it is just calling public hearing um just a general minor with tax abatement we would not pay out more than we took in and so that there's there's not the possibility where well we all we only collect 15,000 from them but we pay out 31 so if for some reason the value of the project goes down we would only pay out so with tax abatement they pay us and we cut them a check back we are never going to cut them a check back for more than they cut us a check in the beginning of the year type of situation up to 31,000 up yeah if that's where we set the number yes or yeah yeah so so it's not one of those situations where it is directly costing the city money obviously we do have to provide services to them um for being as part of the city and there is a cost to that um but it is not a direct cost to the city in that other people's taxes are necessarily supporting the abatement if that makes sense it does thank you and Josh if I could if I could add to that each each year fall of each year like conversations you're having now on setting your Levy the the levy of the abatement for the following year will be calculated based on the actual valuation um in tax rates so by doing that each year you are able to manage um those payments and make sure they are based on um what the actual value and tax abatement revenues are going to be generated so it's not a set schedule so we still could be collecting more taxes than it's entirely possible that if we pay out at 31,8 56 year as as Michaela discussed and let's say the value goes up 3% a year um that either we pay that 3% a year back to finish the abatement sooner than is originally scheduled or we capture that 3% per year and add it to our own Levy it we sounds like for Michaela correct me if I'm wrong that we would have that option of how we' want to set that up that's correct yep so it's possible we could we could collect more than we pay pay out um even if we agree to the initial 100% batment okay so are there any other questions otherwise i' look for a motion to call for a hearing on this so moved is there a second a second okay there's been a motion in a second um any other discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I oppose motion carries and the hearing will be October 21st correct correct correct thank you did you copy I need a copy of this uh the whole packet whole packet make it happen you still got it got Sean's packet right here I got I'm work I got it okay the next item up thank you Michaela thank you um the next item up is a charter commission recommendation uh yes at the uh annual Charter commission the charter commission after some discussion voted unanimously to present a change to the city Charter um for the city for the mayor of New prag to serve a four-year term instead of a two-year term um kind of throughout this proc or I guess kind of get into a little quick background on it um this was a change that uh Scott Rigs and I have been kind of discussing for a couple years um ultimately when we kind of looked at the data this year uh if we look at Scott Rice and lur counties which we are all either part of or so close to you could throw a rock and get to it um it's almost kind of split that as you hit that 5 to 10,000 population Mark cities kind of seem to be switching over um I I believe if you look at I know if you look at Scott County I know that I believe B plain may be the only one who has a two-year mayor term um if you look at lur County uh lur is the only one that has a four-year term um and if you look over at Rice County it's it's pretty well split where the um larger three cities have four-year terms smaller three cities have two-year terms and so some of the um discussion uh and reasons for recommendation is generally a four-year mayor brings a little bit more stability to the council especially if you have a brand new mayor on the council it's 100% possible it takes a year or so for that mayor to get their legs underneath them um and then a short six months later they're already basically having to rec campaign for their position again so I guess through this um as I said the charter Charter commission um had some discussions uh I think um some of one of the largest concerns that kind of came out of the charter commission um during the discussion was the fact that what happens if we get um a radical mayor in there who goes out just off the handle trying to change things uh in in our our current setup um and especially in terms of voting the mayor is no different than if we got a radical city council member um the other four City Council Members would still have four votes over the one of the mayor and so uh after our after our discussion uh the charter commission did uh vote unanimously by those present to recommend this change to the city council the reason why this change is being recommended to the city council is there's kind of two paths that goes into uh changing the city Charter One is the the charter commission can send a question to the ballot um and have the people vote on it uh to go this route there is a um there is a process and I don't believe we would have met the timing this year anyway quite frankly um to get it on the 24 ballot uh the other path is that it can send it to the city council so the city council though for the charter to change has to hold a public hearing which is what um this next step that I'm recommending we hold a public hearing for tonight um then must then go through some various posting and advertising of the potential change and then the vote um and the vote would have to be unanimous 5-0 by the whole city council for that vote to take effect if for some reason the city council decides not to uh either not send this to a public hearing and kind of kill it here or the votes 41 or any vote that's not 5 through the process the question then goes back to the Charter commission and the charter commission at that time has the ability either to kill it themselves or the ability to say we're going to hold a special election for this to be voted on so um uh City attorney Scott rigs recommended that we go the city council route first because it is a slightly faster and we'll say um and he said it's the easier process to go through things instead of having to potentially call a special election um and go that whole route but uh as I said that would be up to the city council at this point as to whether it wants to continue down this route or send it back to the Charter commission to potentially send to the voters my personal recommendation would be to continue down this route and to call for a public hearing I'll make a motion that we call for a public hearing go ahead RI go ahead okay there's been a motion by Sean second it by Magie um any other discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I oppose motion carries and that'll be October 21st also correct okay Josh what was the date on in August of that meeting I can look it up for you real fast here my memo you're aren you DNE no I I got off of it and I wasn't on the distribution so I didn't yes I and yeah again I August 14 August 14 because I don't recall getting it either but I that's why I asked what the date was because I'm on the as well so am I um okay so well it be good to hear at the get some public feedback maybe mhm okay uh next items are well just um the North Memorial we met with North Memorial ambulance and the second quarter stuff is in the packet um they've kind of reevaluated how they um how they record their calls um for for this area so um and how they budget also so it's kind of showing that there's a positive that really uh under their old way of doing it I think they' record the call as to um where whatever bus responded to it I think of how it was and so if somebody not from new PR responded to a new PR call and get recorded here um whereas I I believe they're switching it now as to where they're recording where the call actually comes out of and so if if new if if did I say that correctly no you said it backwards I said it backwards yep so so if the call if the call comes out of here and we respond it gets counted as a response to the new pray crew even if they go someplace else to pick up a patient and so on and so forth versus versus what they were doing is just recording um they would record um everything would be recorded for new PR if it was new PR but prior to this they would record let's say if a fairbow truck came over here they would count that for fairbow and it wasn't a true number of the actual transports out of the city or our service area so now they kind of uh tighten that up and and uh we should have a better reporting um of and the numbers have dropped also because of that reporting um tightening so so and then the next it anything um Rick do you have anything that you want to pring no I don't Bruce okay I don't have anything Sean no nothing I can thany no okay Josh Ken nope Robin uh early voting starts on Friday so we'll be having Scott County early voting here in the um conference room on the main levelwise that's it just for Scott County residents correct Robin how does that work to do people have to get the um get a mailed to them and then come here or do they get everything done here they get everything done here and Lis County residents where did they go to the courthouse CER so so it used to be basically what happened was shock or not Shak Scott County kind of disseminated it to the cities so that if you live in one of the Cities now you go to your city to do early voting instead of going up to the county um I think it's been mixed mixed results quite frankly I know it basically has meant that we as the city have to have staff members trained and or paid um as well as find Space we don't have a conference room for 45 days leading up to an election um to make sure this early voting can happen and I know um I I'm guessing for smaller cities it's been a more of a struggle to ensure coverage as well as to uh not have to bring in extra judges uh to ensure election coverage than it had probably has for the larger cities is this described on our website um I don't think I have a publication on the website yet um we're sending stuff out in the newsletter that'll go out with the utility bill and'll be email to folks that receed the newsletter um but to not be confusing for the newsletter we are just referencing to find your um polling place for Scott County or lisore County we're just providing the links to both counties um because not every Scott County resident can come here they have to live within city limits of new prag so but we'll put something on the website we have in the past so because we do provide utilities outside the city limits but don't we yes we provide utilities but that doesn't their polling place here like for Cedar Lake yeah for utilities that's all okay Tim I don't have anything thanks Matt okay with that I take a motion to adjourn and then we'll have a special closed session meeting after this I'll make a motion to adjourn okay there's been a motion second all in favor say I I I opposed motion carries yeah it'd be nice if if leur County would I mean you know you would be able to do it here you know what I mean MH I more people ask