the work session. Whenever you're ready, mayor, just let me know when we can. >> Go ahead. Ready, Chris? >> Okay. Good evening, Mayor members of council. Thank you for joining us at 6 o'clock. Um not a typical time for a work session to start but we don't have a ton of things to discuss with the budget. So just one major item and then another item we could talk about and discuss what we want to do for final decisions. But um work system is going to be on the budget again. We discussed back in June I believe came um something with like an 18.97% increase in the levy over next year. Got feedback back from council related to um what we'd like to see or council like to see for um next year's 2026 budget. Um, city staff went to work to get down to the number as close as possible at least. I just lost a video feed, so that ain't going to work well. Okay. Uh, there we go. And so, I just want to provide updated numbers for tax capacity change over the last 5 years. Nothing much has changed. It's still at that 8.22% change for tax capacity from 2025 to 2026. And lost video feed again. And um so this is the levy breakdown for going to make it difficult. >> Yeah. Yep. Sorry. Wait for video to come back on. So like I said based on what comments came back from council about getting um down to 8%. We are at 10.34% essentially cutting almost every change that we have that was not a required change based on a union contract or a contract that we had already approved by council. Specifically, recycling is one of those um that we had talked about back in June. So essentially every single thing has been cut. There is one item that's left outstanding which we need to discuss tonight. Um and then I've heard some discussions related to EDA um adding an EDA levy just because they are actually spending and doing dollars and operations within the EDA um you know board itself. And so I feel like it's important that we do fund them for some bit of dollars. Um whether that be enough for them to operate for the full year or just enough for them to at least have dollars to be able to um provide with their professional services that they're doing mostly related to legal andor um real fees if they have any. And that's $25,000. I don't know if that's a number the council wants or not. There has been limited discussion on that, but in general, what I had heard from the council is that we wanted to go down to 8%, but um something to discuss. So talk about EDA. And then the other main item, so this is the graph that you've seen before. This is updated for what has been um changes for the um increase in tax levy from 25 to 26 proposed. And then the 26 numbers with the 10.34% that I showed you two slides ago, that would equal the tax rate roughly. I don't have fiscal disparity fiscal disparities numbers as always, so it's just a wild guess for me. We have that set right now at 35.879. That is a slight increase from 25 to 26. Um, if we allocate that out over dollars related to impact to homeowners, talking about 26 bucks a year if your house didn't change value, about $2 a month. Um, what do you get for that $2 a month? Again, I know we have no control over the value of your home. If your home went up in value, um, it's going to be more than $26, but that's nothing to do with the city of Dayton. That's more or less based on what the county values your home at. But what are you getting for the 26 bucks? essentially is you're getting that full-time uh police officer. So, right now, um city staff has talked we have a currently we just approved a part-time officer um with the Dayton Police Department. We'd like to make her full-time. Um she brings quite a few good qualities. Um the police chief can speak to that and we'd like to see her hired as a full-time officer in 2026. um that is the difference between the 8% or roughly 8% that the council wants to see for the tax levy and where we're at right now with staff at 10.34%. If that is removed that full-time officer um we are at the 8% number that the council has requested which would mean the tax rate when goes down slightly 30 it's like 04%. how >> with that officer. >> That is the main really the only difference between >> the council's request and where we're at today. >> In this coming out of this year's budget, we had money allocated for the two full-time firefighters, >> which really didn't get used. >> That did not. No. >> So, where's that money? >> Where's that money? So, it will stay in the general fund. It said it's not spent. >> Yep. So it would be saved for next year in 2026's start essentially for the year. Yep. >> Um it would go towards that fund balance number that we've talked about in the past in the history with how much dollars in percentage of the budget for the year do we have to get to the next year's you know kind of middle of the year number. Um but that money is then just reallocated or most of it's been reallocated to then fund for um duty crew model andor if we want to do any sort of full-time officer. I did not want to talk about that tonight. We can. It's most certainly possible. I wanted to provide more information to the council about what that looks like for dollars. That was going to be on the 26th of August. Could talk about it tonight, but the dollars aren't going to be spent in 25 if that's the direction of the council is not higher, which has been the council's direction so far. Y >> those dollars are not spent. 125ish 110. I don't know the exact number of fire state aid dollars that we're going to get in that have to go towards the relief association. whatever those dollars are will have to come out of the difference between the full-time um line items. And if that's what you're curious about, I can rent a I can get you a spreadsheet for >> Yeah. >> where we're at and the numbers. And >> I'm curious is cuz it did bump >> the levy by I thought it was like 140. >> It so >> it might have been. >> Yep. >> And so that's still in there. >> It would still be in there. Yes. Correct. it would just be maybe reallocated to part-time duty crew model to hours. So, right now in 2025's budget, we had half the year at $17 an hour and half the year at $30 an hour because we anticipated it would take us 6 months, at least from city staff's perspective, to get to >> the relief association dissolving >> and having the full-time fire department or full-time fire staff, the two of them that had planned been planned on staff level. >> Yeah. And I thought all of that was allocated in there for the latter half of the year. >> The $30 an hour was Yes. The 17 was the first half of the year. Yes. >> Yeah. And it came out to a budget hit of 100. I thought it was 140. So >> I'm not going to very well might be. Yes. >> So here's my question. Why can't we slide that officer into that 140? So part of the 140 would have to come back out of the budget for 2025 because I do not have any dollars in there in the budget for 2025 related to the fire relief aid that we get from the state. So right now I have zero dollars owing as an expense out for that line item. I know that may be really confusing. Yeah. >> So the the revenue comes into the from the state for relief aid. >> Mhm. In 25's budget, we do not have that going out as an expense. We have that coming into the city then out and then taking those dollars and putting that towards retirement of fire of the fire department. That's the chief, the assistant chief and all of the firefighters related to the PAR program that we had approved at the last meeting in December of 24. So that difference there's actually uh it's about the same actually. Um it would say that it covers the chief, the assistant chief and all the firefighters. Right now I'm guessing and I'm use going to use raw numbers. I don't know exact numbers at the top of my head. It's about 70 to $75,000 for retirement for parah roughly for the firefighters. And the difference then would be covered from the chief and assistant chief. If we get the money and we don't have a PAR program, which we do not have currently, the money has to go to the fire relief instead. So we can't keep any of that money for us as the city. So if it's I'll use a 100 because it's an easy number. If we take in $100,000 and $75,000 for that that was supposed to go to the PAR contributions for the fire department, the firefighters excluding the chief and the assistant chief, there's $25,000 difference of tax levy that has to be taken into that number. And so when you then take 100 rand out of that number, the full-time and the chiefs, assistant chiefs, PAR are not covered by that state relief dollars. I know it's really confusing and I'm happy to provide a spreadsheet. I would love to give you one because then it would show here's what happens, what's in the budget right now, and then here's what we have like cuz it's it's different line items. It's not the same line item, which makes it even more difficult. >> I guess what I'm looking at is we're kind of unchanged from 24. >> And to anticipate this, we bumped we added 140 to the budget, >> but the this didn't happen. >> So, seems like there should be 140 in there. But, I mean, if >> I think there I agree it should be there. >> So, >> cuz I what so in 24's budget. I will say that this has been confusing since 24 because in 24's budget, we were going to allocate based on the information that the chief and I had for the 24 budget was that we were going to just pay the officers or the firefighters 30 bucks an hour and just use the state aid money and call it a day. That was the plan at that time in 2024's budget. >> We learned in the beginning of 24 when we went to go do that, the state said, "Well, you can't get your state relief dollars. is not going to give it to you unless you have a retirement association set up for the for the firefighters. Cuz our idea at that time was pay them $30 an hour. That's $17 an hour for their actual pay and $13 an hour for them to do retirement and they can put their money in whatever they'd like. That was the that was the conversation at that time. Um the state said you can't get your relief dollars or your state aid dollars if you're not going to provide them a retirement. So we have to put those dollars towards retirement. And so that changed the whole dynamic. So the 24 budget got say all um kittywampus because we had to take the state a dollars out of those I don't know what you want to call it part-time dollars we had. So like I said I' I'd like to show a spreadsheet. Here's 24's numbers. Here's 25's numbers. Here's proposed 26 numbers based on those. And then you can see the changes that happened in those line items so you can understand what happened. Can you get produce that by by line item within the department because that would be helpful to me also >> um >> year to date or through June of this year the actual >> Mhm. >> Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. Happy to do that. Not a problem at all. And like I said, that's why it's a little confusing when when you say, can you reallocate the 140 out of the fire? can. I just I I don't know what >> you have to unpeel it. >> I'd have to unpeel the orange. Yeah, cuz it's all wrapped together. I don't know how to explain that any better than that because it's like if you take >> one thing out of the equation, it doesn't equal $1 over here because then there's levy dollars have to get built back in to cover the retirement because if the dollars from the state aid are all sent to the relief. >> Now I still have to cover the retirement for the chief and the assistant chief. Now those come out of tax levy dollars and I don't know that number the top of my head. That would be very helpful to me because I understand what you're saying. >> It's just hard to draw those lines in your head. >> It's extreme to another and the >> codependent I guess expenses that >> get added or subtracted with. >> Yeah. >> And I would just ask that you un I guess unbake the cake is how I think of it. If you break that down to the ingredients as far as you can so that way we understand where all of those pieces come together and how that full cake is baked for all of those years because again they are not the same cake. They're different kinds and so all the ingredients depending on what you take out changes what that product. >> I'll try to get my best to give you a breakdown for what >> that was a weird analogy. >> No, I think I think your explanation is correct and I understand where you're at. I'm just trying to figure out >> they're very codependent. >> Yes, I agree. And it's one ingredient changes which changes the kind of cake if you will that you're making. And so if one thing is gone, >> if you substitute egg, you also have to substitute this other thing. >> Correct. Or you can't make it anymore. And so it's like they're so interdependent that it would be nice to have it down to the ingredients. It makes sense to me. Down to the ingredients as much as we can so we can put it all together. >> I don't disagree with you cuz it's it's hard guess for me as well cuz number one, I don't know what the relief is every year. I just guess cuz they don't tell you. and tell you until September 25th for an October 1st deadline. I I I don't know how to make that work and I just guess every year and then when we figure out the number then we just say okay what was the difference between last year and this year and that's a percentage okay that percentage is going to happen again next year and then that changes the budget right >> so and that changes in October 2nd but the main thing is the hiring the full-time officer that's the main difference between where you guys and council majority had been at for a discussion related with myself and I appreciate the guidance and direction to where we're at as staff level So question I have and it's a >> minus the fire. We'll talk about that as well. >> Yeah. A smaller point, but in the the June version of this >> um we had the tax capacity increase at 8.1 and now it's >> it's 8.2 >> 8.22. >> Yep. >> So >> what changed? >> What changed? So that's just different valuations given by the county. So they update them once a month. >> Okay. So you got a new number? >> I have every new I update it every month. It comes out the first of the month every month and it changes. So this number is actually down from the number I got in July >> by 07%. >> You don't know how it changes every single month but it does. And so that's >> the uh fiscal disparity shows up in November the numbers. >> I I get fiscal I get fiscal disparities somewhere around September 1st. >> Oh okay. >> Or at least I I start asking and asking and asking and I typically get around the 15th but I ask around the >> Okay. So the full-time officer, another item that we want to talk about which is additional item to discuss for the rest of the levy. So that's the general fund. That's the only change that happened in the general fund that's not required based on union contracts, previously negotiated contracts, whatnot. Only I want to discuss is the increase in capital equipment for 180 grand. That increase is related to the additional $200,000 towards the previously approved ladder truck. So I want to talk about that as well because that's the that's the total increase in all the other funds for the levy. So, the levy is obviously included with general fund, which is operations, and then long-term planning um capital items. And the main only difference between those ones is really the um >> letter truck or the letter the EDA levy's part of it too if you want to talk about that. >> Um I wasn't here obviously when the letter truck was initially gone through. >> Can I ask why you all thought in 2027 you were going to have $750,000 lying around? like what what did you foresee making that possible? >> I think we did >> we didn't think we >> okay >> I think what we seen was cuz that's not the only expense. Um there was a lot of stuff like 2028 added up to a big number. >> Mhm. >> I don't remember what it was but >> there was in the tens of millions. >> This thought that there would be a assuming we wanted all that stuff there would have to be a bond. >> Okay. Yeah. >> It's like 28 million. >> So the plan proposed to council vaness's question. It was planned to have $100,000 start off and then it was supposed to increase by about 400 grand every year based on what we saw for increases in past history for um tax capacity increases. >> Okay. >> With just anticipated ones. I think staff was shocked and I think also was shocked to only see 8.22%. From tax capacity when historically we've seen anywhere from 34 to 16 over the past four years. >> And so 8.22% was pretty small. And so was where do we cut? where we figure out where we got to go. Um along with operational changes and needed needs that are are there as well. So, >> um and that also brings up our current build for this year. >> Um was it looks like we're not going to we'd be lucky to hit 100 galles. Is that >> we'll hit 100 houses. >> We'll hit 100 now. >> We're going to hit 100. We'll hit 100 now. I don't know if we'll hit 200. >> I thought John the planning commission meeting put out like 85 or something like that. M that's mean we'll hit 100 this year. >> So we eat 875 that's the minimum number that's to cover the the debt. >> It is I guess what I'm getting at is we have historically hit >> 200 >> many hundreds and that's why we've had this big part of why we've had this big capacity bumps. >> Yep. >> And we only had 8% this year and that was with what did we hit last year? How many houses? >> It's actually the year before, right? >> Yeah. The year before that. So I think we had >> last year was Yeah, I think last year was 231. >> So we're I think we're going to see a lot more. >> The previous year from that was only like 2011 though or 202. It was real. It was just over 200. >> 231 was last year. >> So I think the 8% number is saying about >> more realistic >> more realistic. And I think it's what we're going to be seeing. Yeah. >> If not worse. Yes. >> If not worse. So, I I think we need to just get comfortable with tightening things up, >> which is what staff did this year. We're this is essentially status qual. We're asking for one employee and nothing else. Every line it has been stripped for any increase really. I mean there's >> so one thing related to I mean the discussion we had last year around um putting some money forward toward the ladder truck >> was that we had a a difference in the discussion anyway between the total tax capacity growth and what was related to new construction. >> Yes. And we ended up with a budget that was at the full tax capacity growth that we would use some of that. What we are calling surplus to um save toward the uh truck >> ladder truck essent. >> This year we're not in that position. And so I >> I think we are in that position. I think we're in the exact same position. If you take away the 200 grand for that, you're actually lowering the tax rate. What he's >> what he's getting at is the the new value capacity which this year is like 6% 6 >> that's what I'm saying. So I'm saying we're in the exact same scenario this year >> as we were last year >> except we're at 10% >> only because if you take away the new officer now you're back to eight and if you take away the 200 grand for the ladder truck that you're trying to put forward now you're back to six which means we're in the exact same position we are we were in last year. So, if you peel back, I'm going to call it the onion because it's just layers like pull back the police officer. Now, we're at eight, which is where the council wants to be at. That matches the tax capacity. If you go back and pull off the $200,000 towards the ladder truck, now you're at six, which is the new construction number. >> Mhm. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. >> I just I'm not sure you're following me. >> I think I'm following you. I think I understand where you're at. that were at 10 and you wanted to put the surplus towards the letter. >> I'm saying I think that that number can be on the table because we did that as u you know thinking forward >> if we're not in a position to do that this year then if we're talking about do we want the new police officer do we want to set aside this extra money toward the the fire truck >> I think that's worth worth the conversation if it comes down to that. I don't know that we're able to talk about that yet because I think we need some more detailed information around the fire department budget as a whole. I don't disagree, but I think that's a good point is that the $100,000 from last year doesn't go away. That's still in there. If we said we're going to put all 100 grand towards it, now it's $200,000 towards the ladder truck. Doesn't go away. To your point, Council Member Fashion, I think that's exactly it. But yeah, we could talk about it. That's instead of putting the $200,000 towards the ladder truck, can we put that towards the officer? that would be a applicable conversation which makes sense. >> I have a question in when we talked about the budget back in June there was an HR position also in the budget that has been stripping out of this. So I think along the same vein as you I feel like that money that we have potentially aotted towards saving towards the ladder truck it may be better used in other areas. And for me that HR representative is kind of not a sticking point but I think it's important that we explore that um as we grow and we get more employees. just think that's important. And so like I I guess like my want is to look at one spec like not one specific thing, but that's an important thing for me. But I think what if I'm hearing you correctly and correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying is that there are other things within the city's needs where we may not have the ability to put that money away for the ladder truck this year. >> Right. >> Okay. I'm just making sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Um do you remember what that HR cost? because otherwise we're going to end up paying that independent firm all over again and we're still spending money >> and and that's in the budget. >> Is that in the budget? >> That's in the budget. Yeah, that's in the budget because it was in the budget this year. We've reutilized professional service dollars instead of paying some other things. We just said we'll take those care of internally and we'll take HR cuz we as staff realized that HR is a need at least from our perspective. Correct. So assistance with that was needed. So we said what professional service can we afford? Obviously, we only had six months of it this year. Um, because it was approved in June or something, I believe is when we approved that contract. Maybe it was even May. >> Well, and respectfully like saying that I don't know that having a on the side service every so often is enough. Personally, I think that that's a really important piece of what protects our employees and that without having a formal HR department, I think that's an issue to be honest. I'm just I'm just my that's my opinion. And so I would personally like to revisit what that would cost and what that would do with our budget to have that in-house. >> I think staff tried to make that argument and it was um discussed at council level that they didn't feel like that that was a full-time position and I think we pushed back on that and I think another conversation would be >> appropriate. >> Yeah. And maybe it isn't a full-time and maybe it's just more services, but I think it will be very important going forward, especially as we grow and bring on new employees every year. >> Yeah. Well, I'm >> sorry to stare at you, David. >> We blocked eyes. >> I won't answer. Anyway, I'm I'm certainly willing to talk about that. I you know I think that um we have that need and you know at at what time does it at what point does it need to be a full-time position I think that's the conversation we need to have. I agree and it may not be this year that it's a full-time but I think just looking into what those service I mean again we brought on halfway through the year but um I would like to revisit it and what that would cost and maybe find a a workable solution somewhere in the middle. >> Okay. So I sorry Vanessa I didn't want to cut you off. >> I just want to so I just want to recap. Um so basically what's kind of there's like $180,000 that we could put on the budget that would put us at 10.34%. Um and there's two open questions in my mind. one for the people who did not want to go past the 8.2 or whatever that is. Is that even an option or is it going to be a no regardless? That's the first question I have. Cuz then why are we even bothering with this conversation? Cuz like if it's just dead and we're not paying it, then there's no point in in talking about the police officer versus the HR versus lighter truck cuz it's not going to happen no matter what. If it is on the table then I do think that's a valid conversation because it does seem like you know >> there are a few different pieces then depending on points council makes a great point I think that's a valid one that there's a few different points and I think you're you're spot on that yeah >> what's the conversation and I agree >> but I guess so the to me then the big question on the table that needs to get answered before we make you do all of this work is for those and I I believe and maybe I'm wrong if things have changed I believe Scott and Dennis it was two of you that were like it's 8 two and that's it. And I'm not getting higher than that. >> That's where I'm at. >> Okay. So, we've got three people at. Are you okay? >> Well, to me, I I agree with Dennis that I think that I think that full-time fire department money is is baked in here. >> Sure. >> So, want to unbake >> to me to me. Okay. Yeah. First of all, take a bakery class. >> Stephanie, you guys are on board. >> We'll walk you through it. Don't worry. We got some baking skills. >> Yeah. Let me provide that. So, I I got some follow items. I'll provide you with that. I'm going to try to go back to 23 if I can with breakdown just so you can see what >> it was in 23. And then in 24, 25, and 26 are all different >> cakes. It's more spaghetti. >> They're all Yeah, they're all different types than what we had thought about. So, I'll try to provide that breakdown as best as I can for what that looks like. >> And then, yeah, I'll send out something. You know, here's what each cost is. Here's what the HR manager is. Again, we did some general research on based on the League of Minnesota Cities and what it's going to cost for an HR manager. We felt like it was important to have a manager position, not just a specialist because we need that expertise in house. I'd love to say that we have it in house, but I will say that we don't cuz I don't deny that. Um, but HR manager position is going to be more expensive than HR specialist. And so that's just what you have to pay for based on what the general, you know, um, seven county metro area is. And then yeah, I'll provide the breakdown for what does it look like for an officer, this number, that number. We can get down to 8.2 is just what what includes in that. Can I also make one more one more request? When you're um and I know this is >> I know I can appreciate that you really like numbers and spreadsheets. Um but when you provide those spreadsheets which I think are wonderful, can you also provide a small narrative >> um because with your spreadsheet and this is not a stab at anyone up here but not everyone um can track the spreadsheet back to what actually >> like goes into what and what relates to what. So, a small short, it doesn't have to be, you know, the Declaration of Independence. Yeah. It doesn't have to be a super eloquent um paragraph, whatever it may be, but just some narrative. So that way we can understand as you're tracking through your spreadsheet, as you created and the things that you were thinking about and kind of how it all comes together and what the really valuable pieces in there are. Otherwise, you're some maybe looking at a line of a bunch of numbers and go, what are you giving me? I can understand that. So again, >> that would be very helpful. >> Okay. Yep. I can do that. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? I know it was only a half hour and I wanted to keep it kind of short and sweet, but >> the only comment I would have this will be done before the by the first meeting in September. Correct. >> Yeah. I mean, my goal is to have this stuff back to you by again by the end of the week. So you guys can have time to process it and have another discussion on the 26th because the 26th plan for a work session is going to be fire department >> staffing stuff. So, um, >> those numbers will be helpful. >> Yeah, those numbers will be helpful for your conversation for that that meeting. So, it'll be longer than a half hour. >> Thank you. >> Anything else before we wrap up work? >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. We can uh adjourn this one. I'm going to take about 5 minutes.