like that. Call the meeting to order for the workshop. Let me go to roll call please. >> Council member Nordby, >> here. >> Council member Woods, >> here. >> Council member McKenzie, >> here. Council member Schwear is absent. Mayor Mongi >> here. Thank you very much. May I get a motion to adopt the agenda, please? >> So move. Council member McKenzie. >> Second. >> Second. Council member Woods. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you. >> Be late a little bit. >> Topics to you, sir. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh Cassie did say she might be coming in hot. So, uh she should be here though shortly. Uh anyway, first up uh under topics is uh discussion to set the city HR and EDA final levies. We have finance director Dan Wick here to discuss. Mayor, city council members. Uh tonight we're going to um kind of look at the 2026 budget. I know you've looked at it many times, so a lot of this material is is uh repetitive. Um and kind of get prepared to to make our final decision on the levy. Um so any questions that you have please any time um you can interrupt the the presentation and and ask your questions. Um what we're you in a little while when we're in this city council meeting we have to hold the truth and taxation um meeting and a lot of this material will be repetitive. Um but that's for the public and it gives the public an opportunity to make any comments on the proposed taxes um that are coming up for 2026. Uh I'm I'm trying to get a feel if we're still comfortable where we're at. Um because in our next city council meeting on December 16th, I'll have to have all the resolutions prepared and um the final budgets if there's any changes um that you desire um to have those ready to be um you know approved by city council so we can get them off and certify them to Ramsey County for 2026. So, as we start into the presentation, um going to kind of look at the 26 uh general fund budget. Uh we do have some changes in the 26 to 2035 CIP. So, I'll kind of go over those where we're sitting with the proposed levy and then um what that looks like from a property tax impact and then an overall kind of a discussion um that you may have on that. So, as we've seen our from our budget for our general fund budget, um on a revenue side to it, we have a heavy dependency on property taxes. That's the orange um slice there, uh which you're seeing almost, you know, 57 12% um reliance on property taxes. And then our our next biggest component is that intergovernmental of 21% which is um largely made up of 1.6 6 million of it is largely made up of local government aid. So we have a huge dependency um from our revenue standpoint of you know 88% um on both property taxes and intergovernmental revenue which is coming from the state of Minnesota. Um in our expenditure categories uh when we look at our general fund obviously the biggest component to it is our personnel costs which are 69%. Um and so that's really looking at our FTE um or our full-time equivalents that we have uh in our budget which it has not changed from 25 to 26. And you can see kind of a breakout by department um of overall um expenditures. And you can see that uh you know the the two on the bottom, our our fire and code enforcement and our police, our public safety um make up um about 63% of our overall budget for the general fund, which is is customary that you're going to see in in most municipalities. Um what you see after that is I think the biggest next the next biggest one is the street maintenance was which is at about a little over 12% We do have some CIP changes. Again, the CIP is an is, you know, is a a living document that that changes over time. Um, there were kind of a flip-flop. Uh, the first two items in the equipment. Uh there was a a flip-flop that uh was recommended by uh public works and that's to take the there was a Bobcat, it's equipment number 2343 Bobcat 5600 tool cat, move it from 2026 to 2029 and then move up there's a skid steer move it from 2029 to 2026. Um also uh earlier this year um we had uh a little bit changes in the estimates that we had for the 2026 pavement rehabilitation project which is in design right now that [snorts] um so I'm reflecting what those changes were that we had from the water the wastewater and the surface water. Um and you can see the water went up but yet the wastewater went uh significantly down from where it was estimated at and the surface water went up a little bit. So we have those estimates um within our um CIP now which then are incorporated in all of these changes are then incorporated into all of the budgets that were attached. Um the parks had a very good discussion at uh the last park meeting where they made a number of changes um within um their park plan. Um I do have to say that they have been uh very good uh this past year in looking at um their plan um in in making some very good changes um to it. If you remember earlier this year they came in with some requests for 2025 which we've had an update on um earlier this year and then so they went through um their park plan and made some adjustments. Uh the adjustments that you're seeing is um to be totally removing the North Park update, the Casey Lake Park update, and the Kobe Hills small park add-on um have all been removed from the CIP. And then the um and I misspelled Casey on this next one. Casey Lake Park Active Playground was moved from 2026 to 2028. And um they have changed the dollar amount because they've incorporated back the the ninja um component um in that project. And then um they're uh changing uh the playground at Mcnite um field from 2026 to 2027. And then they're adding um $300,000 for a design plans and specification for the Mcnite athletic complex. So instead of doing anything at the Mcnite field at this time, um a survey was done. Um it's prudent now to get some design um plans and specifications um so it can help them decide what can be done on the field. what are some of the preliminary costs that may come out of of some of those and then to sequence them uh in a more appropriate way so we don't end up putting something at the Mcnitefield and then turning around and having to rip it back out or dis or disrupt it as we as we move on to a different phase. Um and they have been looking at phasing in um uh you know improvements to the Mcnite um fields um over time um not all at once. And then we've discussed um just briefly a few times about the fire uh moving up their ladder truck. Um so I have made that change um from 2030 to 2026. It was at 2 million. Right now um the costs um totally incomplete are $1,775,000. On the December 16th meeting um our fire chief uh Jason will be here to answer any questions. have the quote seek approval on to that. Um, so city council can ask any questions at that time if you still not comfortable at that time. Even though you're going to be requested to approve the 26 to 2035 CIP plan, you always have the right to pull something out and have that um to be brought back to the city council at any other, you know, at a later date. Um so you can approve it and and pull different items out if you so desire and we have done that in the past. The proposed levy right now um combining the city um the HR and the EDA is at 8% levy increase and when we look at the city the city is made up of five different components. the general fund and then there next three components. Well, actually all four of the next components are all related to infrastructural. Um and there's the street maintenance component. Um that's part of our plan to be able to fund um streets, uh the preservation plan and so forth. Um parks, um asset preservation, which is really taking care of our facilities and then debt. And usually our debt is being issued um related to uh major reconstruction projects on our streets and utilities. So when you look at those, you know, our general fund is really only going up, you know, just under $95,000. The really driving part of our levy is really, as we've said over and over again, is the infrastructural component to it. um want to and then our H and EDA are remaining the same as we've had in uh 2025 and actually they've been the same for um a number of years now. kind of want to give a a phone call that I had with an individual um uh resident, a taxpayer um who lives on uh Gerald um street who went through the construction project today and um uh she had called up to find out what um the special assessments were going to be. So her husband and her had just recently gone to the fin their financial planner wanted to make sure that they had the money to be able to cover the special assessments. Um, I jokingly said to her, I said, "Uh, are you ready for it?" And she said, "Should I be sitting down?" And I said, "No, I think you can stand up for this one." And and I said, "It's zero." And she said, "What?" And I said, "Zero?" Um, and she was very pleased. It was like an early Christmas present. And so that's the difference between if we do special assessments or we levy it on a regular basis like we're doing. and this discussion and I know the mayor was very heavy on it um in in discussion a couple years ago when we started developing this plan where you were looking at it you know do you all of a sudden wake up one day and you get the special assessment uh notification that it's going to you're going to be getting an $8 to $9,000 bill and how do I pay for that versus over time and over time is what we're doing in the levy to be able to fund these street projects as we move on. So here's, you know, um and and I did explain to her, you are paying for it over time and that's why you're seeing a little bit higher of a increase in our levy um you know, year after year. Um didn't make any comments about uh her property tax increase or any of that um component to it. So you know, one shoe doesn't fit all circumstances. Um you're going to have some that are going to complain a little bit. Um and you may hear some tonight when we go into the truth and taxation about um property taxes, you know, raising. Um and I'm very sympathetic to that. And when we get into the truth and taxation, I'll share a couple of other conversations that I had with residents that had called um regarding the property taxes. Um but here's a you know, the plan and and I give the city council a lot of credit. It it it's you have made a decision to not in to coin the phrase that's been used a couple times kick the can down the road and you're addressing the needs that the city has and it's not an easy position to be in as a elected official where you know you've got to be voted in. um and you made a tough decision to say, "Hey, we need to take care of these needs." And what it's going to mean is that we're going to end up having to raise the the levy. Um but we will see where we're at with the levy is that we're not out of line where other municipalities around us are doing. Um, so I think we're doing a very prudent approach and the credit goes to the city council um for being bold enough and and to to being able to address the needs of the city not just now but into the future. Um the other component that you see outside of of uh you know street maintenance park and asset preservation is debt. And this is the debt that we have this. So it'll show what our debt levy was in 2025 and what it is in 2026. And the change is really that earlier this year we issued um debt um to do the 2025 street and utility project that includes that um Gerald Street. As we compare ourselves to other Ramsey County cities and towns and where they're sitting at this point in time for levies, you can see it ranges from Falcon Heights at 3.88% all the way up to Ardan Hills at 18.32%. You can see North St. Paul, we're we're below the the the middle component to it at 8%. Um you can see Maplewood's at 8.48, New Brighton's 851, Shore View's 8.82, 82 Mountains View's 9% and as it goes up um you know so overall we're we're not standing out on the far end um where Ardan Ardan Hills is but nor are we sitting at the at the end of where Falcon Heights is. Um so we're not out of line. Um and you know cities are seeing the same things that we are. Uh rising costs um both on the personnel side to it and um from an operational side and they're seeing the the needs for infrastructure. Um so um I think you know with our plan that we have um and how we've we've approached it and how city council has approved uh moving forward um and looking ahead in the 2026 I think we're in line with where we should be. Um in the last workshop that we kind of talked about of you know do we still want to always be somewhere in that 8 to 10% range? You know that kind of seems to be kind of the average piece to it. There may be years that we'll adjust that downwards if possible. We we certainly will always be trying to do that, but I think we're not out of line where we're sitting right now at that 8%. Um what is that impact that we would see? Now, you know, when we go into the truth and taxation, I'll talk about what are some of the the market value changes and um some of the different impacts um that [snorts] that impact the calculation for property taxes. It's not just it's not just the levy. Levy does play an important part to it. It's not just the market value yet that plays a part to it. But if we take a a look at where our median value residential property for North St. Paul, which went from 303,000 to 310,000, which is about a 2.41% increase. And with that 8% total levy, um, it has a bottom line impact of 6.75%. Now, we're going to see properties that are going to be all over the range because it depends on a number of different components to it. If we see properties that end up having a uh market value change of 20 30%, they're going to be on the very high end to it. But right now, um this is supplied by Ramsey County. Um and looking at it that we have just under 3,800 uh parcels and there should be about 373 parcels that will see a decrease or a zero in their property taxes. There should be about 20 in the biggest portion about uh 2100 um parcels will see a 0 to 10% um increase in their property taxes. And then um there'll be about a,000 that'll see 10 to 20% increase and there'll be 174 that'll see 20 to 30% increase. And then there's going to be 64 that's going to see more than a 30% increase in their taxes. And that's total taxes and not just the city of North St. Paul. That's their total bottom line um property tax to it. So with that, I mean, this is information you've seen also attached was the complete CIP um all of the budgets um that were there um and really kind of opening up for discussion of trying to find out and again there may be some compelling comments that come tonight from um the truth and taxation meeting that we'll have at city council that may change your mind. So, I'm not asking you to lock it in stone right now, but kind of want to get a sense or feel if we're still at that 8% or you want to give direction um to the city manager and myself to work with the department heads to try to even cut it down even further um down. Um those are kind of open um for discussion and for look seeking direction from city council. So, with that, I'll stand for any questions um and kind of seek your direction here. >> Thanks, Dan. [clears throat] Give members a chance to think about it. if you have anything just >> is it true that Ramsey County has been keeping their levies probably lower than probably what they should have been in the past years and now they've had to possibly raise them up higher because they're falling behind on the uh the scale of what however they operate their budgets on. >> Well, I I can't answer that with a 100% certainty. Um I would say that there, you know, due to co there was a lot of aid that was given from the federal government um that helped um Ramsey County um do a lot of programs to help um residents um that now is you know has gone away. That's you know one component to it. They've made some um different initiatives to help um you know uh you know uh lower income individuals. Housing is a big priority for uh Ramsey County. You know, remember Ramsey County um is is a little bit, you know, is more of a safety net um than you're going to find a a municipality. So, obviously with the economy and and so forth that there's more needs that are there. Um I think that they were prudent um on some of their budgets u that they kept them I think in the three 4% range. Um but then in addition to that is that we saw earlier this year with the big beautiful bill um from the federal government that you know there's changes in the SNAP program um which again falls you know unfortunately it falls to the the the counties um and so to keep those programs going they're going to need to to probably supplement some money. So I think there's a number of different factors I think that played into it. Um, so I'm not going to say 100% that that's what they were doing. Um, but again, they're faced with the same types of things that even a municipality is and that there's infrastructural needs. Even though on their road projects, they they have a few, you know, wheeler t wheelage tax and some other opportunities to to generate revenue, but then again, they have a much bigger infrastructure. Um but then they have a so uh social uh safety network that we don't um have uh necessarily here at the city. So and and we're seeing those the needs um rise um you know quite a bit in the fast in the past few years. >> So what is there going to what are they going to bump theirs up to? Probably closer to 8 9% also. Uh well this year they have it at 9.75% and they do a bianium budget. So I think it's 9.75 this year and in 2027 I think it's 7 12% is what they're looking at as an increase. >> So we can adjust ours basically by how they're falling in line too. Then >> you you definitely you definitely can do that. I guess I always look at things is is more of what are your needs versus what I don't look at what their needs are. I look at what the city's connection >> what are Yeah. what are our residents um you know needs are um here >> No, I just had a cough. Sorry. >> Oh, >> but if you're done then I'm going to bring up Okay. Thanks. >> So, thank you. Um, I feel comfortable just because we've worked so well together. I mean, it's not like at the end you were just coming here and you give us numbers. We've been working with the staff. So, you know, we met with the department heads and we went over things as far as where we're at. >> I from my thing, I think we're at a comfortable number with where we're seeing. >> You know, we don't want to, you know, dig down to the bone on things just because, you know, to make an example or do whatever. We want to have a city that, you know, runs, you know, be able to run efficient. And I think with the attitude we've seen with the city manager, yourself, and the and the management as far as the with the city that everybody is is rowing the same way. So, I'm comfortable myself with the work we put in and where we're at right now. >> I'm agree with that, too. I too agree with what is planned out. Um I do want to correct one thing especially with the parks and wreck piece where we move the 300,000 to two uh 2026. We have the design plans. What the $300,000 is for is land surveying. That was the plan. So that's why we had um sorry uh HGA. Am I saying that right? >> Yes. >> That's why we had HGA come out assist with those plans. The the purpose of the 300,000. What we discussed at um parks and wreck and Ken, please correct me if I'm wrong because you were there as well was that we we need to survey what what does it hold? What can we hold? And is it are we able to have what HGA has proposed in those areas. >> I know that they did the survey um that JG uh Rudd was out there and did the surveying of that property, but maybe it's the is engineering that maybe that you're thinking about with that. [snorts] Um well now now I truly feel lost on that piece and I think Parks and Recck would say the same thing if they were in the audience tonight because >> okay >> that was what we had talked with at the meeting. Like I said, Ken, if correct me if I'm wrong, um because that was the hot topic on just the parks and wreck piece alone and having budgeted those dollars. Um to see the 300 to park plans and specifications, we understood that we haven't had it surveyed. They were is what we were told and and excuse me if I'm misspeaking, but um they were ready to say, "All right, let's let's do something with this." And then it was pushed back just given the former workshop and I wasn't there. So um I can't speak to everything and I know Dan it wasn't um a favorable experience on the parks and wreck end for you and I for that I am sorry. Uh we can't shoot the messenger by any means but um all of that that's what we understood that we would move the $300,000 there for. So, I think we need a little bit more clarification. Um, obviously we'll I'm comfortable leaving it at at where it's at, but I would really like to um visit next year. And I would say in January, if not the first meeting um for parks and wreck next February in regards to what does this look like because parks and recck are really anxious about getting some stuff started and um we're we're hung up a little bit. So >> Greg, >> anything you want to add to that? >> Yeah, if I may, Mr. Mayor, to clarify, council member Schwar that we had we spent 26 or $27,000 to get this property surveyed that was completed in September. the $300,000. If you remember during the meeting, we were discussing we need to get engineered design plans and specifications completed so we can then decide, okay, we're going to build this first or we're going to build this first. What are the drainage concerns? Do we need to work with the wershed district? All those different pieces. And we don't know those answers until we until we have a design, not just a concept like HA did. It's taking that to the next level. So, you could hand the plans to a contractor and say, "Hey, build this thing." >> Right. >> That's the That's the intent of the 300,000. >> Thank you. Now that you are now that you've clarified that, yes, that does ring a bell. My apologies. >> So, yeah. And assuming that stays in the budget, then we'll be working towards finding a consultant to do those for us. >> Yes, that was okay. Thank you. Dan, if I may, um could you go to the percentage um city's increase where we're at 8% Maplewood's at 8.4? One of the things I have an issue with when I look at this is the metric doesn't give us or the public any information about where people were prior. If if Ardan Hills had a very very low um levy their their levy even though it's increasing 18.32% actually could be increasing less than ours depending on where their total levy is. Correct. >> As far as levy dollars are concerned. Correct. I >> Is there another metric you could provide to us and the general public that you believe would help paint um a little bit more informed picture? Is it total levy divided by population? Is it total levy divided by taxable properties? Um I just I mean you certainly can I mean a lot a lot of the metrics you know that are that are utilizes your tax rate and and you've heard me say it you know before um what are we on a rank of as far as how high our tax rate is number two. >> Um but then there's a lot of factors that are into that. So, if you're going to take a Maplewood or you're going to take a um Mountains View, um take how much commercial property they have versus how much commercial property that we have. Yet, you know, per capita, you know, we're going to be close to the same amount of road space that we have to do that we have to take care of. So, where they can have a business taking care of a a larger part of it from a tax base perspective to it, we don't have that luxury of doing that. um you know where it the burden is more on our residents than you're going to find in some other communities. I wish that was different but it's not. It's a reality piece to it. So when we're looking at this you know whether um it's right or it's wrong um we're having an impact on our residents and you know as we keep raising the levy it's going to keep going up and up. It was kind of interesting. I had, you know, a another conversation actually today, a part of the conversation because I'll share the other part to it. Um that somebody had talked about their property taxes and it it happens to be somebody who's um retired um that uh she was 80 years old and um obviously on a fixed income and um although her property tax was only going only it's still going up but 5.6% 6% in comparison to you saw the demographics of how things are are going to be shifting and was really you know how do we not have to pay taxes type of concept is is what she was um alluding to or talking but at the end of the conversation you know what she said but there is no cheaper way for me to live >> because I couldn't afford to rent a place >> thanks yeah so I I mean, it it's all about perspective and so I I can't answer your question as far as what metrics would be the best to be able to do. Certainly could show you dollar amounts um if if that would be helpful in the future. Um can show you any any way you would like to see um the component to it. I like to look at things from the standpoint of have we done a good enough job through the budget process of identifying what we need? Have we scrutinized and made sure that what we need is what we need and it's not a want. That's the first component to it. And I think what we have, we're not asking for FTEES. And so the sense and feel that I've heard from department heads to it because I'm the middle person um from city council is that right now we're we're sitting good from an FTE, in other words, a personnel um perspective. Um heard comments um uh you from from a a couple of council members that maybe we need a few additional FTEEs. Well, that would raise us even higher. Um and then we the biggest and I keep driving saying this over and over again, the biggest driving factor we have is our CIP. Um that's what's driving our levy. So when we go through that CIP, the question that at the end of the day is are we comfortable with that CIP? Is it reflective of what this city needs to be moving down into the future? In the past, we've had a lot of different conversations of has the can been kicked down the road and we're paying some of those prices now of trying to play catch-up and then position ourselves into the future. One of the biggest pieces that I showed you and I did a comparison between Mounds View and uh the city of North St. follows how much debt we're carrying um in comparison. And that debt means we're losing money. We the our power of our money is not the same as it is in Mountains View. Um so, you know, how do we get out of that? That's part of what our plan was that we adopted and and we're now into the third year of it in 2026 is to start to levy those dollars to be able to pay cash for those um you know like for the pavement preservation and um and move us in a in a little bit different position which is actually again I think at the end of the day saving taxpayers money. Um, but I I'd be more than glad to have a conversation with you and and try to come up with a metrics that you think tells a better story. I I would love to do that. >> Yeah. And and I'm I'm happy with the 8% and I'm happy with the 8% because I trust my fellow council members and I trust Brian and all of you guys because I know the conversations we had and I know the work we did. But when we're talking to um our constituents and the general public, a few more numbers, you know, for instance, our 8% raise is what 720,000ish. >> Mhm. >> But what is what is a 5.3% raise in St. Paul? How many million? >> Yeah, it's it's huge. >> So So ju just some more of those numbers. >> Sure. it for almost like from a salesman's approach um to help share I I think might be a little helpful. >> Mhm. And and that information is readily available so you definitely can get that for you. >> Awesome. >> Just a quick I was at the doctor's office yesterday and I checked in and the lady I was talking to her and she's 82 and she's working the receptionist. She was retired at 65 and went back to work at 80 because things weren't she didn't have enough for all the bills and everything else. So there is a lot. You look at Menards and Home Depot, you see that there's a lot of people out there that they're running out of retirement money. So yeah. So that's why it's very important for all of us because we'll all be retired someday and trying to live off what we have. >> Yeah. and and and we've had multiple conversations, you know, through this and this isn't easy decisions for you. Um and and that's where, you know, in certain ways I'm I'm very proud of how you you you've stuck to a plan and you're in and you're and you're moving forward with that. Um because it's not easy and and being an elected official, that's doubly hard. Um because the easiest thing to say is I want a 0% levy. um from a staff perspective is I have no idea how we would ever get there. Um and and be able to do anything within the city. Um but if that's what you asked um we would do our darnest to to bring it and and then try to explain the impacts that that would end up having. But >> and we also learned from that 0% levy back in CO time it was a double because we didn't get the state that as you can see that's our second thing we depend on. >> So I mean then that go so it was a double whammy. So, you know, you try not to be too high to get there, but you got to be high enough to be able to still get the city need we need to keep our budget going, >> right? >> Any other questions? >> Consistency as well because I know there was talk of adding special assessments back after having them and then getting away with them. that can be difficult to start re-implementing things when you might have new council members on to have new ideas and you know some of them are worth implementing but you know going back and forth with some of those decisions can be tough on the residents. >> It was it was tough for me to swallow like Dan said I had paid $10,000 the year before the last year we did it. So is between the two houses. So I mean it was like well I but then it's for the good. I'm glad that when the lady called and said, you know, we're on a fixed income. Do we have to borrow from our 401k? You know, if we get in that habit where we can disperse and everybody gets a little and just remember when you do go but it does go up a little, that means you're not going to get that $8,000 slam 3 years from now. So, it's one of those things where you can budget a little bit more to understand that it's not happening. I mean it takes a little bit for your mindset especially after you were done with it but I understand it because if everybody does it it's it's really does help the people which we have in this town older lower income. >> Y >> I think it's important too to recognize for what it's worth the three of us that have been here and this is our third year we've decreased the levy in the past three years. So, I mean, that's I I would like to see that in what we've done over the past period of time and what those levies looked like because I do believe that we did we are putting money away. We're finding the right tools in our toolbox to make sure that these levies do not increase um significantly high because it is not cheap to live now and especially after these property taxes that just came out. Unfortunately, residents think that they're on our city that's doing that. So, um I'm hopeful that we can make that clear during our council meeting tonight that it is not us that are making those decisions. But thank you for taking all the calls. [laughter] >> I mean, if we have to start at 6% every year, like we you said, we're only going up 2% from the the average of the six that we're >> that we have to just to survive. 6% is surviving if I if I'm correct. >> Yeah. I I mean if you take away in our general fund, if you take away our personnel costs, we have decreased the rest of our operational costs um year after year. Um so I mean that's that says a lot. Um yet it you know if we didn't have the infrastructural component to it, I mean we would be sitting you know 2 3% no more than four a year. Um but that isn't our reality of where we're at. Um and so you know again from my perspective I think department heads staff have done a very good job of compiling the CIP. I think city council has done an excellent job of scrutinizing and vetting that out with us um and making sure that we're being prudent um and that those are needs. I I truly don't see wants that are there. Um and things do change over time and you know I think an indication of that is is just at the the last city council meeting where um you know city council had to make a a tough decision because uh in our police force um you know they they've got failing u body cams and camera system. So Alson, where where do you come up with that? And and no, it wasn't in the CIP, but if you remember, uh because I had mentioned a number of different times, we had paid off a debt at the early in February of this year, which we had um some money left over. Um so it was my recommendation to use that money and not hurt what we've been planning um you know, moving forward. So luckily we had that but that's that was one time um that that bond is is you know is gone and and we're we were using up the access on to it. So um you know we won't have that next year. Um but it helped us out into in that circumstance and that's where part of the workshop that I was trying to to get at is that we I don't want us to get I don't want us to be in Ardan Hills at 18%. Um, I want us to be somewhere in a level playing component to it. And then what we're going to need to do is if we can't make the eight and do you want eight or if you wanted it at six, then we need to look in and again the biggest driving factor is that CIP is what can we make adjustments to in that CIP yet still be moving us forward on everything and and being able to then deliver a lower levy um component to it. And and so that's where kind of want wanted to find out what are your priorities um and you know in city council and that's where you know at the beginning of last of this year allowing the department heads to be a part of that um retreat and and the planning helped us so much to open up that communication and getting us a different perspective because our perspective is more on that day-to-day type of component to it in in in planning but not in that long range visionary component. into it where city council has that piece to it. So, and again the dialogue, the communication is so important to us from staff to hear from you and to get your thoughts and and and ideas. >> Dan, uh, while we're talking, um, just want to go back to something you mentioned. Um, when you talked about Ramsey County, you said they do a bianual budget. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> Is that something the city could do? Is there cost savings to go to that route? Uh cost savings to it. Um well, I would imagine there is some sort of cost savings considering the size just the pure size of Ramsey County because you're doing double budgets. Um but in their second year of the budget, they still review um the budget and they can make they make at that point it's called they make an amendment um to it. So, it can change. Um, you know, they still have that opportunity to do that. Um, but it's just it again it it's it's I I look at it as just more try to to to plan things out. Um, you know, a couple of years. Um, there's a there's a few um counties that do that, but yeah, they've been doing it for a number of years now. But but for the city, would there be an operational savings, a significant operational savings? And is it available to us? >> It's a I think it's available to us. I mean, you still would you still have to do the final approval to it. Um you still would end up looking at it cuz things can change. Um I I don't know if it would be that big of a change or significant change for us um from the standpoint of if we try to lock in at a certain range um of and again I'm going to say levy increases. It could be dollar increases um on an annual basis. I you know I I think you achieve that you can achieve that both ways. Um, I think it's a little bit harder I think for our it it was when the county made the change because I was there at the time. Um, it was I think it was harder for staff and department heads to do that projection um outwards looking for another couple of years out especially during times where there were um union uh negotiations. So what ended up being is that there was contingencies that were built within those those budgets at a higher level, you know. So like the county has a like you used to have like a $2 million contingency that they have a part of their budget. Um so they can absorb a lot of change that could happen. Um we don't have that. Um so that would be something that you probably would want to think about which again to first put it into your budget, you're going to end up having to raise a levy for that too. But yeah, I think it's something that we definitely could do. It just needs to be adopted by the city council. >> And I guess I would say along those lines, if we given the stability, I guess, of the city, you know, and the members of the city, the council, and things like that. If we're all going to be around, you know, continuously, I think it would make that easier. But, you know, given the four-year term of things, it's it's hard to say, "Yes, this is what we're going to do in six years or five years or even two years if you may not be in that same position." So, I don't know. It's it's hard to project out that far sometimes. >> It is. And, you know, the the reality to it is is the plan that we have today. um you know, the next election could change things and and there' be a whole different thing and and the plan may no longer be the plan. Um and that's kind of a you know, reality of what can end up happening when you have, you know, an elected um you know, council, elected board. Um so, but I think where we're at right now, I think we're we've done I think a very good job of planning. Um, I think we've opened up uh lines of communication and I think we're making those tough decisions of of having, you know, of raising the the levy which has de and and nobody's ignoring it has an impact on our taxpayers and residents. But we're trying to balance that with making sure that the the city is still delivering the services that the city needs to deliver. And part of that is our roadways and part of that is our, you know, facilities. Part of that is our parks. Um, and we're trying to make sure that, you know, this is a true community, um, where people can enjoy all of the wonderful assets that the city does have. >> I talk a lot with different mayors and things and, uh, some of them are trying to get to a 5-year projection, 10ear projection. So, I just want to thank you for your guidance on being already at for us. So, we have a snapshot of what it looks like, what's coming in 2034, what's coming in 2030. That's huge. I mean, especially when it comes to voting and, you know, changes. You know, somebody's not happy with how it's going, you know, vote happens and the next one comes in. But at least we got an idea of, okay, the fire truck's coming or something's coming. We we can at least look at it as we're doing it. So, I I just want to say thanks again for being able to forecast. Of course, things change. We pull it, we move it, but at least we know it's there. Nothing worse than something biting you that you had no idea was there. >> Thank you. Any else? Anybody? All right. Okay. [clears throat] All right. Moving on to uh discussions of the proposed 2026 fee schedule. And we have Ken Roberts here, our community development director. Mr. Mr. Mayor, members of the council staff has worked together with all the departments, I should say, really the community development staff and uh again, big credit to Sarah and her work on this and preparing an update to the proposed proposed fee schedule, which if it looks favorable for the council, we'll have it uh on the agenda for the December 16th meeting for final adoption. The uh staff report we included in the packet outlines some of the major proposed changes to the fee schedule. Uh and I'll I'll run through some of the highlights for you. Uh [clears throat] right now we have a city processing fee uh with for using the computer systems for any transaction and we're adding a waiver in that for any transactions less than $25. We're not going to charge a $15 processing fee. [clears throat] Excuse me. That just doesn't seem reasonable. Uh the building permit and inspection fees have some uh changes. They don't directly affect the city. They will affect anyone getting permits in the city. And those were all prepared with [snorts] some input by city staff by Rum River, our building inspection consultants. And they're in a separate attachment that's included at the in your packet of information. Um, a lot of those are reflective of what was is required now by the state law and their experience now in North St. Paul and what they think are reasonable fees for their time and for the permits that they administer for the city. Uh, in general, staff did not find any major issues with them, but we uh need to again include them as part of our fee schedule for going forward. Uh, couple of things under business licenses. We're going to remove the outside theater and taxi cab licenses. As you remember, we talked about taxi cabs at the last meeting. We're taking that out. Uh, there's still currently a line for special event vendor license. That's being changed to a mobile food vendor license. So, again, kind of a cleanup thing that trying to address uh the changes that the city has adopted. contractor licenses. We're removing a couple of those because that ordinance was changed in July. Regarding general contractors and mechanical contractors, uh electric department had a few additional fees uh or and construction inspection fees based on our electrical inspector. Those are included uh in there. the middle of our the second page of this report, we've outlined the updated park and recreation fees for the rentals which were discussed by the parks commission and approved earlier this year by the council. So now we're incorporating those all into the fee schedule. That includes removing the alcohol deposit of $150 and adding the $100 alcohol fee for Casey Lake Park and Housy Park as we talked about earlier. Uh this year the electric utility has some rates adjusted or included for time of use service fees and that there's a table there that uh is in incorporated into the overall fee schedule. The actual fee schedule that's in your packet of materials is got a strikeout replacement uh version so you can see where all the changes are. Uh again I just highlighted very quickly some of the major ones but all the new any place where there is red uh and there's many many lines of it there are changes uh [clears throat] important to point I I think it's important to point out we're not proposing any changes to our planning and zoning fees. So, for a subdivision or a variance or even a driveway, uh the city is not proposing any changes to those fees at this time. Uh so, a lot of the changes were generated by our consultants again for electrical inspections uh and our building inspections uh services that are provided to the city. Uh I guess with that, I I'll stand for questions. Dan is of course available. Rem River included some talking points about their changes. Uh if they're included in there, if you have questions, I can try to answer them. Otherwise, I'm sure Dan or Ron would be happy to answer any of their changes that they have. when they call for an inspection, what's the re what's the uh response time for Rum River to come in and do inspections on homeowners that are getting projects done? >> Are they pretty quick? >> I Well, they call Rum River directly to set the inspections. >> Okay. >> My understanding it's usually 24 to 48 hours. >> Right. And we've not, as far as I know, I haven't heard any complaints about them not getting the inspections done. >> Okay. >> That's one thing I was going to mention is when we switched to Rome River, we had some, you know, we had to do some things and I've had very positive feedback from some people and no feedback. So, so far, you know, we seems like Rum River is going well. Any questions anymore? I was looking through them. I know we went through them during uh during our meeting. So, I appreciate that, too. Is everyone through the city okay with uh the increases for the parks, buildings, and all that? They're in pretty good shape for that. We heard some grumbling, but the the park reservations opened up yesterday and December 1st for residents and I I'm sure there's always some sticker shock, but I think if you remember when we looked at the fees, parks commission looked at them and the council looked at them, it seemed to me, and again, credit to Sarah, she did the research that our fees seem very reasonable for the size of the space. And remember, they can rent it for the whole day. It's not just for a 4hour block of time. >> Uh >> that's for part for us too. So we don't have to have a shift to go. Correct. So it works out for the city not having to spend as much absolutely both ways. >> So uh I think overall that I don't foresee a big problem with it. >> One thing I do like is that we're not doing the little onesy twoozies that we're have a minimum now. We're not going to uh So I did get a complaints. It took two minutes and I have to pay. So that was uh I think good to be able to have that limit as far as trying to for some of the smaller ones. >> I guess I'm not following a twominut >> just a takes two minutes to do it. They charge the amount of money. So it's one of those little onesie twoozies where it took just a couple minutes. So now we we kind of we have a two that you know if it's a a bigger job then yes otherwise it's not. And they're still responsible for any uh cleanup that they uh bring alcohol and they're supposed to clean up after the if they have alcohol on site, they're supposed to remove it. >> Everything >> notify the city that they have had alcohol down there. Right. >> Well, they're they're supposed to notify the city when they make the reservation. >> Right. Right. What could potentially happen is they if they don't notify the city and then it's determined there was alcohol by either the cleaners or the police or however, then that's another conversation. We keep their entire deposit then. >> Okay. Yep. That's fair. >> Um very happy with the the fees. Um my only ask um would be that o over the next year um keep in mind um some of the grants that are available um and make sure that these fees are in line and the wording and everything is correct where they can be covered with grants that are provided by the state like the solar the emerald ashbor and stuff like that. So are the solar permits able to be covered by the fees? Are the ashbor trees able to be covered by the fees? So, if there's any tweaking we need to do to make it more beneficial in either wording or price, um that uh these fees and and stuff can can be in line with what the grants allow >> to be clear is an eligible expense. >> Yes. for the ground. >> If there's no other further questions, Dan, did you have anything? >> I just wanted to remind uh the mayor and city council that this item um with the fee schedule, your CIP, um all of your budgets, and your uh levy resolutions will all be presented to you on the 16th for final approval. Sounds good. I appreciate that there's some time in between. So I know at one time I heard that you did it the same night sometimes the vote and after the meeting. So you do have some time. So that's good. Thank you. >> Anything else? >> There's nothing else. Thank you and we'll turn it over to the next item. >> Y thanks for staying on top of it. We appreciate that. You know, we we re-evaluate because sometimes you get it wrong. Sometimes you need to look over things. So, it's good to be able to uh keep the line, keep it in line. And I'm not going to call a taxi or anything else. I said that today. I was at a restaurant. I said, "You need to call me a cab because I had three iced te's." And she goes, "A cab? I'll call you an Uber." [laughter] So, I kind of dated myself on that comment. >> If she said it, if she just said a limo, >> that's right. [laughter] in the movers. I wouldn't want to get in the back seat. >> All right. Next up for our topics is update on water quality and we have a public works director and city engineer Morgan Dolly. >> Hello, gentlemen. Welcome. >> Good evening, uh, mayor and council. Um, so I'm guessing Brian kind of filled you in a little bit about what's going on with our water. Um, just to give you a quick overview, uh, we test bi-weekly for our water. uh for um basically the test is for caulifform or bacteria or ecoli in the water. Um we haven't had a bad test in I I can't even remember what when. It's probably been eight years since we've had had a test. Basically, when we had we have a test that shows if there is ecoli in the water, which would be some type of feces or something like that. It could be a dead animal that got into the water system or dog feces or something like that that got in there. We'd have to do something like a a boil order or something immediately. We'd have to go on the news, let people know what was going on. But a cifiform, it's a u organic bacteria that gets in there. That could have been it could have been dirt, it could have been leaves, something from, you know, we don't know for sure where it came from. um more than likely the road project with all the water mane that got replaced up there, but we don't know that for sure. It could have been any water main repair that we've done um over the course of, you know, this last couple months. Um like I said, we test bi-weekly. Um and basically the like the test that we did the beginning of November uh showed one one area or one place that we took a sample. We take six different samples each or bi-weekly and they get sent into a water testing clinic. Um so when we got a positive test back for that, what they require you to do is take go back there, retest that area or retest upstream, downstream any well that was running that at that time and then uh put those tests back in. So we did that and the test area or the one that failed the first time came back good but one downstream failed. So what happens then is they notify the Minnesota Department of Health and they say hey there's a positive test for Caulifiform. Um so then what happens is the Minnesota Department of Health comes out and they do their own test. So just to show um right from the beginning the Minnesota Department of Health is involved with it. they kind of guide you on what you do and what you have to do. Um, to show you the urgency that the Minnesota Department of Health really didn't have on it is they didn't come out and test for a week and a half after those positive tests. I I was having people like on board to start doing stuff like immediately and he's like, "No, I have I'm out of town for the next week." Our Minnesota Department of Health engineer that we deal with, um, he's like, "I'll be I'll be out the following week when I get back." So he came a week and a half later did some tests. Um and then three out of the five tests that that he took had failed. So at that point he said, "All right, we just have to temporary chlorinate our water." Now again, this wasn't something that we had to go on the news and talk about. Um it it's just something it's a standard procedure for doing you know for what we need to do for this uh to get the bacteria out of the water. Um it's not something that's going to make you sick or make anybody sick. Um but it's just something where we don't know where it came from. Um you know it started on the north side of town. Uh when we first heard that this happened we have four I think three or four valves that separate the north and south side of the city. we immediately shut those valves to try to isolate it to that, you know, maybe one side if that that was affected. Um, but through further testing, we had found that, you know, we had a positive test over on this side of town, too. So, um, basically through the guidance of the Minnesota Department of Health, um, the only thing that we do had put in our water prior to this was fluoride, which is mandated, required that you have to put in. Um, so like I said, through the Department of Health's guidance, they're like, "Hey, we want you to chlorinate um your system, you know, and we're probably going to be doing this." And like I said, I'm giving you a quick overview here, and then you guys can ask questions. Um, so our our system, we have five wells, two water towers. Our system is not set up to put chlorine into the system. Um, you have to have a separate port for chlorine and fluoride. you actually have to have a separate room for chlorine and fluoride to they can't be stored in the same room. Right now, they're allowing us to do it just because it's a temporary thing for right now. Um, so all we're doing is we're running two wells. We have chlorine in two of the wells that we're pumping into the system. And really the goal for that is so immediately when we had to start chlorinating, uh, the Minnesota Department of Health tested Wednesday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, we had bad tests. By uh Thursday morning, we had chlorine going into one of the wells. And I think by Friday morning, we had chlorine going into another well. Um so we're injecting it in just those two wells. Um how our system is set up, it's all interconnected. So um we have a well by each water tower um that we are chlorinating and then so that's hopefully it's filling well it is filling the water tower and the system at the same time but just because we're using we're just using those two wells. We just we've been flushing hydrants for that whole week basically to get that distributed out to as far as we can in the system. We're testing daily, multiple times for where this chlorine residual is. And I know you a lot of people, you know, we've taken a lot of phone calls, uh, you know, oh, this smells terrible. This, and I, you know, I can smell it. I grew up in North St. Paul my whole life, so I can smell it immediately. Um, but the safe, uh, chlorine levels are they, they go by parts per million, so they want us to be at least at 0.5 parts per million up to four parts per million. we can be to safely um people can safely drink and use the water. Um I think the highest reading we've had anywhere in the city has been maybe like 2.1. They want us to be injecting it at two parts per million through the Minnesota Department of Health. And as it goes out um and distributes out, it'll break down because the chlorine goes out and does it thing. Um, so again, we're monitoring this daily and trying to get this chlorine out to through the system, uh, you know, out to the outer parts of town. And we have residuals out there, but it takes just a little bit and it's going to take, he said, a minimum of a month for us to be doing this. Um, probably more than likely, you know, around two months for us to be like chlorinating the system. So, I know I just kind of rambled on here, but I just kind of gave you just an overview of kind of where things are at. We don't know for sure where it came from, but it's probably from a water man being replaced somewhere or a repair done somewhere. Some dirt may have gotten the system, you know, when everything is done. When we have work done in town, we always tell our contractors, "Hey, we're one of the few cities that don't chlorinate, so you guys need to be extra careful when you're doing this stuff." So, um, yeah. So, that's kind of the quick overview. So, I'll leave you guys some time. And I know Morgan, you have anything that you want to add? >> Yeah, I know you did [clears throat] a really good job, uh, of covering that, Ron. I would just re-emphasize for the council and the public that um, you know, this is not a boil order alert. There's no, uh, evidence of E.oli in the water. Total Califform is a different indicator that shows there's, um, some organic material in the water. And so, and this this these things do happen. Um, uh, another city that, um, I work in had this happen about five years ago. They went through the protocol as directed by the Department of Health. Um, took care of the issue, right? And so, the important thing is that we're following under the Department of Health's guidance uh, what needs to be done. Um, they're being good partners. Uh, there's more tests being taken every day. I think some more were taken uh, today and so continuing to monitor that. It will be an ongoing um potentially month-long process and and folks will smell that chlorine in the water, but part of the testing that the city is doing is not only for uh making sure that the cifforms are gone, which is that's what the um you know, that's what we want to have happen, but also to monitor the chlorine levels as well too to make sure that they're in the proper range and everything has been in the the appropriate range thus far. So, and and one thing I want to clarify too with it, which I had, you know, I found out from talking to Minnesota Department of Health, the caulifform can't turn into ecoli. So, it's they're two separate they're two separate things. You know, I that just it can't happen. So, what we're dealing with, it's just to get that caulifform out. And for the chlorine, the smell of the chlorine, like I said, for my house for the first times, I was like, "Holy cow, we must have this here really strong." because I could really smell it and it was like 0.5 at my house. So, and >> just cuz you're not used to it. >> Because I'm not used to it. And what I what I've been told and I don't know if this is totally correct, but this is from our chemical supplier, but he said that if you don't have your levels up to like one part per million or 0.9 part per million, the actual if you have low chlorine amounts in your water, it actually can smell stronger. So he says once you get your system up and kind of balanced and have it distributed evenly, he said if you get that number up there, it will smell less like chlorine. But I mean there's a lot of residents that have lived here for a long time and you know and me being a prime example of it, I was like, "Holy cow, this is really strong." And you know, tested and it's it's still way low. So, um, we have enough in the system that it's doing its its job, but we got to remember we have I forget how many miles of pipe in the ground, um, to get this distributed and balanced through the system, and we're doing it with just two wells right now. Um, and again, I I talked to Minnesota Department of Health every other day and how things going. Should we be changing anything? Um I I just want you guys to everyone to know that it is being monitored and taken care of uh at night and day. So um we're flushing hydro. And what's hard about this right now, the best way to get this distributed through your system is to flush hydrants. Well, when it's 5 degrees out, that's not a great great deal. But we have some uh hoses that we have down into some storm sewers. Uh we're also uh taking the opportunity to flood Casey Park by flushing a hydrant >> flooding the hockey rink at Casey at the same time. So um yeah, I so I'll leave it open for questions that you guys have um about this. >> Well, thank you for the update. Um, one thing that after you explained and learned and you had the gut feeling that there was something going on, you tried to get a hold of somebody at the, you know, the health department and he was on vacation. Is there do we have numbers for other people now in case something happens like that or >> I was in contact with him immediately. So what >> but he couldn't come out for for a week >> that Yeah. He was like I said, "Hey, when do you need to come out and test this?" He's like, "Well, I I don't have to." He goes, "I'm going out of town for a conference." He's like, "I'll come. We'll come out." I'm like, "You don't need to come out right away." He's like, "No, not a big deal." He's like, "I'll come out and take care of it when I get back." I think those people are assigned certain regions. I mean, this is a guy, Lucas, that I deal with like, you know, for years. So, for me, I was like, "Oh, all right. This isn't as big a deal as I felt felt it was." Now, I don't know that it got to the other side of town because he didn't come out immediately. I I I can't say that. I just I take all my basically the water guidance from him and what we need >> 100% and I'm not questioning that. The only thing I'm thinking is when I'm on vacation I have somebody cover for me. >> That's not an answer for next time. I think >> that's why Ry's here all the time. He chooses to come here because it's like if I'm or whatever it's like >> and I think we need to talk to them and say hey we got to have another number if something happens because it could have been something more serious in >> Well, yeah. If if it was, you know, Yeah. And I I can't speak on their behalf. Um I just think good practice I think for us is to have a couple things to say when you're on vacation now that we went through this where do we go because waiting for you and I might that's where my thought I'm not saying that anything was wrong it's just that you know for that you know in my out of office it's if it's an emergency or something you need you know press zero and have Tom assist you. Yeah. >> Y >> that's where that's where I would like to be able to see that in case it happens again where anything we have where it comes to something that's as crucial as you know power water anything where you know where is our primary where is our secondary as far as trying to get a hold of people. I think it would help all of us make your life a lot easier because now you're backtracking and trying to you know we're doing two months worth of testing. Now, it may have helped, it may not have, but how fast we could get somebody out. And as far as we couldn't do anything until he came out here, it's not like he said, "Well, just go ahead and start treating and I'll get back to you when I come from vacation." It's, "Hold off. I'll come back when I'm done with vacation." >> And I don't think that's an answer. >> Well, thank you for all that you've done. It does stink. Like, Lori, [laughter] I'm We are very fortunate to have a well here in North St. Paul and we do recognize it, but clearly we have not been through this for >> Yeah. >> How long? So to have this minor issue for two months and it's not E.coli, I think we're in a good we're in good place and it sounds like you guys are public works is on top of it >> always. Which pumps or wells are you treating? Right. >> We're pumping or we're pumping one well five. So the tower at Northwood, the well right there and then uh well number two over in Tower Park um by that water tower. So that one actually had a separate injection site that was installed. Um, and then we actually we take took the fluoride out of we're not pumping fluoride in well five. We're going in through that port through that in our well, which the Minnesota Department of Health approves that our fluoride levels are still have still been holding up. Um, they said our fluoride levels can go lower. Basically, the fluoridees in the water for kids teeth and keeping and that's basically the only reason the fluoride's in there. So, >> if you had a rough guess, what kind of budget impact does this have? I I don't know. Right. So, right now the the pumps that we had to install and the chlorine, it's pretty they're pretty basic. It's a basic pump. Um I I don't know what the the chlorine stuff. I didn't even ask those questions at first because I'm like, we need to get chlorine out here and start doing this. >> Um but I'm I I'm going to get numbers together for um just so we kind of know if we had to do this or if we had to look at doing this, you know, permanently down the road, what what that would look like. Like I said, we would need separate rooms or there's stainless steel outbuilt things that you can put in because the chlorine needs to be stored on, you know, different site. But >> that would that's for a that would be a speculative like future permanent outfitting, right? But in terms of what's going on right now, um the other city that had this happen five years ago, I did call the the public works director and just ask them what was the budget impact. He said it was fairly minor, I guess, just for the temporary uh work that they did. So again, I don't have an exact number. That's something that public works can maybe put together and provide a future update for the council on. >> Yeah. >> Oh, good. Well, appreciate the hard work. >> Thank you very much. Sounds like you've done everything >> in your power. So, >> yeah, >> we're we're on it every day. So, I just >> No, >> rest assured that we'll make sure we have safe drinking water for everyone. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> All right. Appreciate it. Let's uh ask for adjournment. >> So moved. >> So move. Council member Schwar, second Woods. All those in favor say I. >> I. Thank you. It's uh 6:30. Give us 5 minutes to 6:35 start the next round.