I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. call the meeting to order. The first thing on the agenda is to approve the regular agenda. Does anyone have any questions, modifications to the existing agenda? Move to approve. Okay, I'll second. Go ahead, Bruce. Okay. Motion by Rick to approve the agenda. Second by Bruce. If there's no other questions or comments, all in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay. The agenda is approved. 5-0. First item on the cons agenda is the consent agenda. Uh does anyone have any questions um concerns or anything on the items that are in the consent agenda? I'll make a move to approve the consent agenda. Second. Okay. I got a motion by Maggie, second by Rick. If there's any other comments, questions. If not, all in favor say I. I. All right. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Next, we have uh number item number four, the public's invited to be heard on matters not on the agenda. Uh we limit that to five minutes. I do have a list here. Um we if if you're not on the list, if you could state your name, well, always state your name and your uh address. Uh also, uh be cognizant that the council is not going to be interfacing with you. You just for public comment. If there's something that is uh regarding property or something in question of that, we'll take note of that and it will be handled to to the department of the uh that should uh look into that. So with that, the first person on the list is Dennis Tits. Good evening, mayor, council members. Thanks for your time. Dennis Tits, 2850481st, Lee Sewer County Commissioner. Uh, just to give you update what's going on in the county. Um, starting next, a week from tomorrow, we're going to be working on our budgets. So, we'll be meeting with all the department heads for 2026. That's going to be probably four or five Tuesdays working with the department heads. uh still waiting on a lot of the what the federal government's going to do far of helping us out in the county. So, we're crossing our fingers with that. Other than that, that's all I got. All right. Thanks, thank you, Dennis, for the update. Be interesting to hear how it pans out. Next on the list, Brian Pollson. Hello. Uh my name is Brian Pollson, 206th Street Southwest. Um last meeting there's a couple comments about the fire station. Um so I just wanted to kind of make some comparisons of that. Um I know the petition's on there for later. So this is just my comments on the the fire station. Um so one thing to compare uh the police station to that is the fire station serves over a 100 square miles versus about 3.8 square miles for the police station city limits. Uh this increases their tax base dramatically um for the fire department. Um, it took 21 months from the capital improvement plan or C CIP approval on June of 2006 to the signing of the contract in March of 2008. 21 months. Whereas the police station had already signed a contract when they went to pass the capital improvement plan. It took 17 months from the SIP to the bond approval for the fire station. From the the CIP plan to when they went to do the bond sale, 17 months. It was about 3 minutes for the police station. The fire was financed over 20 years to reduce the interest costs, whereas the police station is proposed for 30 years. My sons will be older than I am when this is paid off. Additionally, the police station wasn't even on the 2025 visioning list as a projected project until December of 2024. The fire station sequence, visioning, the CIP, the bond sale and financing, bidding, contract, and then construction was methodical avoiding errors and building trust with residents. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh Miles Pavoc. Nope. Didn't want to make comment. Okay. Kathleen Harrington. No. Okay. Uh Bob Harrington. Okay. John Jenkins. Okay. Uh Austin Revel, sorry, Austin Revel, uh, 222 Second Avenue Southwest. I'm just here to say that I look forward tonight and, uh, moving forward with the police station and the things it means for this community. That's that's all I have to say for that. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Sandra Tit, nothing. Okay. Betty Brujek, we just thought for signing in for the meeting. Okay. Uh, Dick Shepard. Nope. Eric Thorson. Okay. Does anyone else want to make a comment to the council? Any else? Anyone online? Okay. You know, I'm not prepared to comment or any such statement. Nobody's making a comment. So, um, please come up to the microphone, state your name and address, please. Sandra Teds, 1410 Third Street Southeast. And all I'm going to speak to is just what I hear in the public, which you've probably heard, too. And I don't know that the the thing is issues that I see him are the time framing as he mentioned, but also the feeling of the amount that it is in comparisons with other stations. And I don't know how that all works out, but there's I don't know that people are as against it as they're concerned about the cost of it. And the secondary thing they're concerned about is how it affects the school system and their likelihood of passing uh a levy or referendum in and especially there's supposedly some talk about fed not the federal government not providing as much for our school system. So, it's kind of which way do you go? But I I'm not so sure there would be as much disgruntledness about the police station. I think people see the need. I think they're concerned with cost. And is there a way to do it at a more reasonable cost? That's all I say. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else want to make a comment? Yes. Hi. Hello. I'm Mary Hegel from New Prague, 1437 10th Street Circle Southeast. And I would like Brian Pollson to come up here and explain um do you have um any idea what can you please talk into the microphone? Yes. What the taxes will be after you know what their plans are after um if if this does happen with the police department, how much per household the tax would be? Is this a matching grant by the way? Would this be a matching grant? No. There's for sure. For sure. So, just now this is just for building the police department. This has nothing to do with um buying police cars or whatever they're going to have that goes in the police department. Correct. Correct. There's equipment and Yeah. So, what what what do they plan to do with with that um tax tax everyone for that? Well, so so just of note, Mr. Mayor, all tax impact information is currently on the website according to basis on the valuation of your property. So, you can find that out there depending on the value. I would like you to explain, please. I guess now is not generally the time. Um, if you would like, I can certainly expl talk to you after the meeting. But, uh, this this portion, ma'am, again, this is public comment, so we're not in a position to interact. So, if you do have questions, it will be duly noted and then we can get back to you. Maggie, I think now is the time that we would like a little information and it is available and we can do so once this meeting is concluded. That's that's the terms of the public comment. So, please appreciate that for a few minutes, please. I certainly can speak with you after the meeting. How do you feel about this, mayor? Would you would you like him to explain for a few minutes? Well, he's going to he can explain it to you after the meeting and he can show you uh on the website that has the information there. But the way the meeting is set up, this is uh just for public comment on issues besides uh you know that's not on the agenda. So usually we just take note of that and someone usually gets back to you depending on which department was affecting it and based on your question that would be something the city administrator would take care of. So okay, he would he would definitely explain that to you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And thank you for understanding. Yes. Have any other comments? Anyone else like to speak? Anyone else like to come make a comment? Anyone else like to make a comment? If not, item number four is closed. Next, um item five, public hearings. At this meeting, we do not have any scheduled public meetings. Uh item six, city engineer projects update. Um I assume Matt, you're going to give us I don't have anything to add unless you have questions about the memo. That's certain. Okay. Everything seem to be going well. It is. I would say the this year's project is ahead of schedule. Uh as you can see, last week they started um paving Lincoln Avenue north up to Third Street. Uh today they did a bunch of curb work on Lincoln between third and fourth and then on First Street. Um the 2024 project they did some more overseating. Um and they should be watering this week and everything else seems to be going smooth. Okay. Thank you. Anyone on the council have any questions for Matt regarding the the street projects? Okay. Thanks, Matt. Next ordinance is for introduction. Uh we do not have any on the agenda. Uh ordinance for adoption. We have none. Uh so we're now at item nine. Uh resolutions. Uh Ken, I assume you'll take that. Uh I do have start with a we do have a quick presentation uh via PowerPoint for you. So variance V5 2025 is an item uh reviewed by the planning commission at their meeting in June. It's a reduction from the front setback from 30 feet to 12t 3 in for a front deck by Matthew Egan. Um his request at 3054 Street Northeast was to reduce the front setback from the normally required 30 ft to 12 feet 3 in. Um this particular deck um was on a home that was built in 1972. They actually are not going any closer to the road of Fourth Street than the existing deck, but they did widen it um a couple of feet from six feet to 8 feet and that additional encroachment required the variance that they applied for. Um so again, um not any closer to the road. Uh planning commission did recommend approval 4 to zero at their June 25th meeting. Uh the council other than the mayor uh because you were not here at the time uh did review a um petition from the gentleman for building the deck without a permit initially and he had appeared in front of the council last fall um to um basically get an exemption without going through the variance process. So staff worked with him to locate property lines and that led to the request here um at planning commission in June and then tonight here at the city council. So, a quick overview of the site map of the neighborhood. All the homes are generally much closer to the road than um our typical newer neighborhoods that would meet setbacks. Uh on the overhead here, you can see the outline of the deck um and the closeness of that home even uh without having any deck on the front. The entire front half of the home is within the setback. So, just widening that deck by by two feet is really the the variance request that they're looking for. So, there's the original deck. Um, and a couple of views from back in 2013. And then a view of the current deck. It's actually a nice improvement to the home. Um, again, just adding a couple of feet. Gives a little more maneuverability in and out of the front of the home uh for access uh for guests and the owner of the home. Couple other views in the neighborhood. You've generally have uh homes that are again very close to the front property line. the photo on the bottom in this slide, that home is actually only six feet from the front property line on its um side, corner side there. So, ultimately, staff and the planning commission do recommend approval of variance V5 2025 um as recommended by the planning commission and uh with the terms of the findings within the packet, including the one condition that they obtain a building permit and obtain uh the necessary inspections as part of that. So, with that, um, I'll conclude staff's report and we'll just put a site map up of, uh, the variance request again for you. So, is the deck on and done? On and done. Yeah. It was built without a permit, so it's kind of an after the fact variance. Okay. So, that's why we had some good pictures of what it actually look. It's kind of unique situation, I thought. Anyway, when he when he presented it to us, it was kind of unusual. I make a motion to approve resolution 25-07-07-01. Second. Okay. Got a motion by Bruce Wolf, second by Rick. Uh, anyone have any other questions? If not, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Ken, I assume you're taking the next one. I will. So, the next item is also from the June 25th Planet Commission meeting. And this is a request for variance V6 2025 to allow a drive-thru uh with microphones and speakers in the front yard along 100 Alton Avenue Southeast. Uh the applicant is Lamachia Group and they are proposing a new location for Heartland Credit Union that's currently located in the adjacent strip mall at New Commons um out on the east side of town. So again, Lamachi Group submitted a building permit with the variance uh to construct the financial institution at 100 Alton Avenue Southeast. It's about a 3250 square foot building with two drive-through lanes and a community room. Uh the variance is requested because drive-through lanes with a microphone and speaker are not allowed uh by the zoning orders to typically be located within a front yard. This property has a front yard along both Main Street uh which is trunk 1319 on the north and then also a front along Alton Avenue on the east side. Um during the uh review by staff and the planning commission, they did add additional landscaping between the microphone area and the drive-throughs on the north side of the um site. And then they also added an additional window. Um there were concerns staff had in u having an appearance that all the sides of the building appeared as the front of the building and um that was added into the plan as kind of offsetting uh the variance to have these um considerations included as part of the variance request. Ultimately the planning commission recommended approval uh 4 to zero at their meeting on June 25th. Um again the area is located on the east side of town entirely zoned B2 community commercial uh with the red uh indicated for that zoning on the map. So no residential adjacent to that property and as you can see in the corner of two major roadways there. So kind of limited where they could have their uh building layout on the site on the overhead just showing that there is one vacant lot to the west. Uh further west of that lot is the existing O'Reilly Auto Part. So, they're right in the corner of the roundabout at Alton and Main Street, Trunk Highway 1319. So, zoom in a little bit here. Um, you can see how the drive-through lane kind of loops around um the building um from the east side uh along the north side of the building where they have the drive-through lanes and the uh overhang uh for the speaker and uh night dropbox. And we added had them add the additional landscaping. You can see the few bushes kind of staggered along that north side of the drive lane there. Uh as well as one additional window and they were limited on the site. Um storm sewer and um the ponding was required on the north end of the site due to existing site conditions. And uh the other thing they looked at was moving the building uh more to the east and kind of flipping the rotation, but it did not allow for the circulation of the drive-thru separate from the parking uh lot which is on the south side of the building by the main entrance. They wanted to keep the circulation traffic from the drive-thru away from the parking lot traffic, which I think is a good safety feature to to have. So, this is kind of the uh compromise uh to meet um their needs for safety and circulation. And obviously um staff and the planning commission recommended approval as long as we have that additional landscaping and um considerations for the north elevation. So, these are the four elevations. upper uh left hand side is the front facing to the south um towards the Cobborn's uh development. Uh the one on the top right is the side that would face Main Street or TR Highway 1319. You can see the the drive-through lane kind of overhang there. Uh we had them add the uh leftmost window, the eastmost window on that elevation. And then as you you don't see in that rendering, but they had had them add additional landscaping to kind of block the um ATM and the dropbox um from public view and cut down on the noise from the speaker as well. Um but additionally, as noted, the speakers over 90 feet away from the curbway of the highway there. So other elevations just show the other side. So uh it's an attractive building meeting all of our ordinance recommendations. And here's kind of a color rendering of that north elevation facing the highway. And the the window that looks like it's white, that was the added window uh for kind of sprucing up the appearance on that north elevation of the building. Nothing to note really on the site, just a big open lot. And um as I noted, they would be moving from the strip mall to that location. Um and they hope to break ground roughly in August if the planning commission and council or staff's recommendation is approved by the um city council here tonight. Um and staff in the planning commission would recommend that. So with that, I'll just leave that slide up if you have any questions and comments. Okay. Anyone have any questions or comments to Ken regarding this variance? I'll make a motion that we approve resolution 25-07-07-02. I'll make the wrong one. Oh, that is the right one. 02. No, you had 02. Yeah. Okay. Okay, then Maggie second it. Any questions or comments before we vote? If not, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Thank you. Thank you. 10. General business. First petition to request public vote. Uh yes, Mr. Mayor. On June 12th, Brian Pollson submitted a petition to the city of New Prague um requesting a public vote on the general obl for the use of general obligation bonds, general obligation capital improvement bonds um series 2025A um for use on the uh police station that's being constructed. um staff worked with Kennedy and Graven over um the last few weeks and on June 26th I did notify Mr. Pollson um that the petition was sufficient um due to meeting the required number of signatures per the Minnesota statute which in this case was 244. Um so I guess at this point um that petition has been submitted successfully and I don't know if uh city attorney Scott Riggs has anything else he'd like to add to it. Um but basically at this point um to continue with use of the capital improvement bonds, the um city council would have to uh submit the question to voters for a special election. So as a reminder, this is for a certain form of funding um to be able to complete the project. And mayor, I can jump in just to add to that as well. J Josh has a pretty good memo explains what's there as well as your options under the statute. you either have to submit it for a vote or you can ignore it and leave it lay on the table as it is and it'll still take effect that you cannot use the capital improvement bond process. So either way you e either have a vote or you can't do the process. Josh also explains in the memo then you should look at other alternatives for financing which is obviously what you'll need to do at some point in time whether tonight or later. Um but as to the petition itself there's no action you have to take tonight. Um, and you could direct staff to go forward with one of the options, leave it on the table or submit it to a vote. Or a third option, direct staff to to pursue other financing options for the contract and the project that already exists. Again, this is only dealing with the financing aspects of the project, not the project itself. So, keep that in mind. What's the cost to do a referendum? Uh, I know I was speaking with staff. Um, since we had no other elections planned for this coming year, um, and with current Minnesota laws requiring early voting up to 45 days, um, $10,000 would probably be a pretty decent estimate on what it might cost us. And that would, if it were put forth to a vote, that would occur in November, correct? At the next election. Wasn't that the same time that the school board was planning on their referendum? Uh, yes. So we technically already have voting options for that that the school I mean we could split the payment with the school district but they set up for that referendum. I mean there's always potential. No discussions have been had at the school district at along those lines. So but isn't that your understanding that there is going to be a school referendum that coming up this fall? I think that's Yeah. No. Yeah. If if they move forward there is that option to work together but I have not had that discussion. So I don't want to speak on behalf of the school districts. No, but the voting stations will be set up for that referendum for that day. Yes. So, we could add this to that when the voters showed up, they could just get Yes. I think I think the primary cost would be the 45 days of early voting that we would have to then staff as we did. Um, if you remember for the 2024 elections, we had to staff 45 days prior to November, August, and March um, here at city hall that people come and vote early if they wanted to. So, we'd have to pay someone or two people, I believe, to staff that. And just to clarify, if the school district went forward with their own referendum, would they then have to fund that vote that the the polling? Yes. Yeah, they may. Yeah, they they have the same election costs we have, I believe. Thank you. So, I just got this memo when I walked in 10 minutes before the meeting. So, it wasn't in the packet, right? I correct. Yes. So, um Scott, I I'm just a little confused. So, even though there is 244 uh official or the minimum required, there's more than that, but the the minimum required to push it to a referendum, the council can just sit on it and not Correct. Yeah. But by operational law, then you could not use that financing mechanism. That's what the statute provides for. So you would not be able to do CIP bonds. So that would just force it to the EDA then essentially other options. Yeah. Whatever other options you want to explore. Correct. Okay. Well, I'm going to reiterate that I I was against this from the beginning anyway. So, um, against what, Sean? Against the the police station and certainly this cost that cost um there was a point where I had actual uh on this board people that were questioning the cost too and we asked them to skinny it down a little bit. That did not occur. Um, and uh fortunately we got lucky that we were able to save a few million dollars because the initial estimate was 13 million. Um and then what what was the um the bid came in at 7.8 I believe. Uh is that right? 7.9 for the actual construction of the station. Yeah. But the whole including the the bond and the interest and the all the equipment and everything else was 13 million and now it's 10. That was the estimate. Yes, that was the estimate. So we saved some. That's what I'm saying. We saved a few million dollar. Um I don't like what this does to the tax levy. Um, we've heard that it's anywhere between 14 to 16% of what amount of of the city portion. Correct. Of the city portion. That is correct. So, um, that's going to be a direct hit to the I hope that answers the one lady's question that, um, we kind of danced around, but just off the get-go, it's 14 to 16%. So, um, and that's not the market value of your home. That is the city portion. That doesn't include the county portion and the school district portion. Right. I'm talking just the city portion. Yes. I just want to clarify that because there is some misconception. Okay. All right. Um, I don't think that's true because the number you gave. Well, that's that's what the levy is, right? But we haven't gone through our budget process yet. to know what our actual increase will be, which I agree, which I and I've never seen it decrease. So, we still don't know where our insurance is going to land for our uh for uh our city employees. Uh I haven't seen a list of the equipment requests as of yet. Um so, there's things that we could possibly cut, but I'm just saying if it stays normal, what we're doing is our 3 to 5% that seems to be our average over the last number of years. Now, we're going to add 14 to 16% of that, and we don't know what unknowns we're going to have, including the Do we have a cost yet or an estimate for the fuel oil container that they found? That was already been disclosed. $5,000. I was going to say, yes, I sent you an email. Um, the I didn't see that email, so that's why I'm asking the question. And certainly everybody else did. Yeah. the the disposal of the contents of the tank um plus the testing of the surrounding soils thus far have have equal a little over $8,000. Okay. Um and so once they're able to get a better scope on what it actually looks like and what needs to be done, then we'll come back and we'll talk about what that's going to look like. Okay. Any other comments? I would like to discuss more about the EDA funding. Okay, Scott, can you or do we have a represent? Yeah, you have Rebecca Curts here from your financial advisor, Ellers. Um, certainly can provide any we can try to answer any questions you have. Let's put that one. Okay. Good evening, Rebecca Curts with Ellers. Um, would you like to talk through the process or do you have specific questions? How would you like to begin that that is our next option though. Correct. Uh yes, it would be an option to have the E it would be an option for the um EDA to issue the debt and it would basically be set up like a lease. So the EDA would own it during the term of the debt. The city would lease it and the lease payment would be equal to the debt service on the bonds. And then after the bonds were fully paid, it would be turned over for the city to then own the building. And what is the interest rate compared to a CIP bond? Um, so this is as close to apples to apples as I can give you with with everything. Um, the bond that we presented but was was not awarded um was at a rate of 4.4% 4% and that was roughly a month six weeks ago. Um today if you issued a lease versus on today's rates for the exact same issue only through the EDA versus the city because it would not be a general obligation of the city the interest rate is 5 or about 5.048%. So roughly um 60 basis points or 6% higher than um when the geo bond was was sold um a few weeks ago. And does that have the same option of after 10 years being able to refinance? Uh it if you did choose to move forward with an EDA lease, um you would have the ability to have them callable. Um and then at that point um we would would have the option to refinance, pay early, pay a portion depending on the situation and where the finances were. Um the 10 years is, you know, that's that's um a negotiable and something that we could definitely set up when if you move forward um when we were working through the terms of that on how the EDA and city would want that to be laid out. But there would be a prepayment option on that. Yes. Okay. the 0.6% higher. What is that actual dollars? Do you have that figure? Um, we I I looked at interest rates, but um we have not run numbers. We were really kind of looking to see where the direction from tonight would go with the council. So, I have not updated numbers. I looked at rates and that's it. Okay. But I'd be happy if you'd like us to take that direction. I'd be happy to get that information for you. Do we need to put it back up for bid then if we do go that way? Um yes. If you did decide to um switch and go with an EDA then we would the city would still be involved because we recognize that ultimately this is a city facility. But um the EDA would then go through that process um and call for the sale of the bonds. um we would work with everybody to make sure they were structured if we did want to make any changes. Um the EDA then would sell the bonds, but it would include that official statement and offering um take it back out to the market. And so while I gave an interest rate of um estimated 5.04% that ultimately would depend on what the the market was on the day of the sale. And would the bonds be based on the city's rating? Uh, yes, they will. Well, they would be based on the city's rating. Um, typically what we see is the general obligation rating is one step higher than what we would see as a lease. And that is pretty typical just across the board. Um because the general obligation from the city does pledge its full faith and credit to the bonds and with a lease it is not pledging. There's not a full faith and credit pledge. So typically it's it's the current rate rating for the city and down one. But again that would be very typical for that type of financing. Okay. And that impacts a little bit on why the rate would be slightly higher. Do you know of any other options to finance this? Obviously, the city could take a mortgage out. Um, is that an option? I don't I'm just asking. I don't under under um Minnesota law, you are required to, and Scott can talk about this when I go off here off the track, but there is you need to have um statutory authority. Okay. And um that is limited. the statutory authority options are limited and so cities cannot just walk down to the bank and get a mortgage like you would on your house. Yeah. So to to the mayor's question, the answer is really no. We can't just go out and get a mortgage. It's a bonding mechanism of some sort that you're pledging something for repayment rather than going into a bank and mortgaging. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. I'll be here if there are additional questions. Okay. Thank you, Becky. Any other questions for Scott or So, I guess as just have a I guess question again just to reiterate or discuss maybe um the referendum issue as far as funding. Um I guess I'm glad we're back to the point because when I got back from the 4th of July, I thought that we're building a jail at one time. um and all sorts of numbers from 10 to$20 million. But um my position as I me mentioned in May I I'm not in favor of trying to get out of the contract. And principally be was there's a couple reasons but principally because the um there's also already cost that we've incurred the minute that we've signed the contract. Uh and any anyone can make their own judgment or guess as far as what that might mean. We discussed this at a previous meeting and the attorney at that time said it's unknown but I have enough experience to know that uh it could well be 10% or more that we'd be liable for. So to me at that point in time already in May that it we're we're kind of stuck. We can't um in my in my opinion it's not a good value with a taxpayer to get out of a contract and and have over a million dollars down the hole when you consider the architect fee and other expenses. So by that time I thought the best value was to proceed and I still feel that way. So that's um very legitimate concerns with costs and things like that. So that's something that's been discussed and a lot of these things have been discussed over the last two to three years. So that there's not any really brand new issues that are coming up that we haven't already discussed or looked at over the last two or three years as this process evolved. Um, but getting back on on on point, I guess my question is, do we do we have the money to fund this and actually go through a referendum process? And I'm not sure if we've looked into that or not, if we can self-fund it. Is that even feasible for us to really seriously consider that without affecting our financial condition? So our general fund itself does not have the ability to selfund this which is one of the reasons why we were looking at the bonding process in the first place. Um I say that in uh if we um were to speak with the various um utilities um there are certainly funds available across various utilities. Now I don't know the exact number that our sanitary fund is currently holding but um it is quite significant. But at the same time, that money has been set aside to um pay off that building up there without having to really spike the sewer rates of residents over time. Um for that, I know um our our utility commission has a fair amount of funds across their both electric and water, but at the same time, I also know that they are looking at projects themselves um and trying to control costs. And so while there's certainly uh cash available, I'll say, and I think it could be used in the short term, I would highly recommend the city council look at some way then to supplement that cash back on the back end so that way those funds then don't have to um hike rates basically to pay for those loss reserves. And just so I understand the timeline, what amount of time do we need to say, okay, we're going to have a referendum is what amount of time do we have to allow for that? Do you know that off top of your head? Yeah. Well, we would have to get this to the county probably in the next 30 days or so. It's is that quick? Yeah, it's quicker than you think just because of notice provisions and things like that. November is coming a lot more quickly than you think. So, we may have a little more time to early part of August, but um yeah, it's coming quickly. Well, I'm just wondering if we could get our ducks in a row as far as understanding what the how feasible that is to do that. Um to try to get that all done and to go out through our finances to really make sure that we're not that we're doing something that's prudent. that's um doesn't affect our financial condition. That concerns me to try to get that um put together that quickly. Um, I guess I would be wanting or to consider the belt and suspenders approach of trying to pursue the uh lease option at the same time as seeing what's it really really feasible to us to us to wait for a referendum because I do feel I I have no idea if people would see a value in in this enough to understand that there's a lower rate that you might get if you passed a reference. referendum. There are certainly very legitimate reasons that people will not support it and that's well understood. But um I I'd hate to walk down the road and all of a sudden think we should have been working on the other option at the same time. Um and that's not to say that I'm saying we have to do the referendum, but I I think we have to think about how we walk this down the road here. So in the event that there was a referendum put to vote and it was voted down, we still have the option of optional. Correct. Yeah. So so so I I will say along those lines um to go the route of the EDA lease revenue, there are certain things that we would need to set up anyway. and we'd actually um been talking about them kind of through the spring anyway because our EDA is currently going through a strategic planning process and kind of what the next steps are. And so some of those steps would need to be taken regardless of whether they're looking at a lease revenue anyway um as they look to their next projects. And so I think we certainly have the capacity if that's the way the council wants to go of kind of running things in tandem for a little while because the EDA has to do most of those other things anyway as it looks to its future projects. I I would agree with that that that makes sense. You certainly could pursue what what Bruce is stating. You could go down both paths for a time. Okay. And Josh, you mentioned to me when I asked is that we have enough reserves to handle the short term. In the short term, our general fund does have enough reserves for it. Um certainly more than our utility fund. Our general fund would need to have some sort of supplement on the back end. um the longer it goes and we'd certainly keep an eye on that. Um and it may end up having to be some sort of interfund transfer ultimately from one of our utility funds with an agreement then to pay those back. Any other comments, questions? I have one but just lost. These are the good days, Bruce. Yeah. Um so do we want to make a recommendation to look down both paths the cost of putting the referendum vote and also um the process for the EDA lease? I mean, at least to get enough information for us to make an improvement, actually have staff pencil through how how would the funding occur till after that because we're really talking about I mean a quick turnaround Becky would be November whenever our next meeting at the end of November saying, "Yeah, we want to go ahead with referendum route. We want to go the other route." Um, and then we have to turn around and do the work, sell the bonds. You wouldn't get funding till January probably or February. I I I think the question came, Becky, because we could do all the other background work on the EDA through that process since it has to do it anyway. Correct. Um, what is the turnaround from council saying EDA, we'd like you to pursue this to us holding cash? If you Yeah, please. If you um held the election or referendum in November and called for the sale shortly after that, you could sell in early December and have it close by, but our goal then in that typically would be to have it close by the end of the year. Um, some of that is going to really be a timing of how quickly after the referendum you would move forward with it. But if you did it immediately, I think we could we our goal would be to close fast by the end of the year and wrap it up for your calendar year if you went down that route. Okay. And we would also I I should say um we would also want to sell and I don't have a calendar so I'm going to kind of guess on a date but sell prior to December 15th because after you get to mid December through the end of the year um it becomes more challenging with the market. Yeah. December 15th a Monday. Okay. So I would not award or do a bond sale any later than that if you wanted to do it in this council meeting then would be the Monday before that two Mondays before that anyway. Okay. I just wouldn't want to sell like December 17th or 20th is I guess my point. Okay. I guess this I have a question of Scott. Okay. Um, this whole thing is very unfortunate and it's obviously a mistake we made when we when we called and published the first hearing in March. I think it was um it was published in on the agenda, but I don't think it was pointed out as spelled out as well. But as Mr. Mr. Pollson remembers he there's only two people here at that meeting. Nevertheless, we never opened the hearing so it was done incorrectly. So we find ourselves in this very unusual situation. So there isn't any good way but maybe you can tell me is there any way to really describe in a referendum ballot what what the issue is because it's really on the farm I use a different terminology for this. I understand that kind of backwards for having somebody vote when the building has been started a long time ago, right? And we're not voting to build the building because it's it's already being built. No, it it appears there's been some misinformation circulated because the building is going up. You have contracts in place. You're talking about what mechanism to finance the project. As to your actual question regarding what you put on a ballot question, it is pretty straightforward. it it will be do you proceed with the CIP bonds in the amount of the 10 million etc. That's all it will be. We can't explain. You certainly can explain. You can't advocate. You can explain but you cannot advocate. So an explanation of saying how did we get here? Why is this there? That's all perfectly valid to put on the website and let people know. But advocating, going out, putting up signs, things like that, no. The city can't do that. Well, my motivation obviously is to try to respect the petition that was done, but at the same time give people the opportunity to vote for something that might save them money. Yep. And a lower interest rate. But if we can't spell that out, then I just like to know that. But yeah. No. And it's difficult to do that. The question is very straightforward as I suggested. Um it is going to be simply that. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Any other questions? any direction we want to make to uh staff? If we were to do something right now on the EDA um option, um what's your timing based on that? If we were to do something right here, right now, well, if you made a motion to have staff and your financial advisor and myself work with the EDA and move down that path, there are certain steps we have to take place. Um I I know I'm only talking about 90 days at it probably at a minimum with the public hearings and things like that to deal with. Um so you're you're going out at least three months that I would say if not four. Well to get it to the point where yeah you're going to a bond sale. Yeah. So probably even a little bit longer. Yeah. I think so. You'd have to move quickly if you were going down that path. And that's why to to the council member's suggestion of going down two paths. We can try to put together a synopsis of what it is on each path and what the timing may be, when you have to go for a vote versus where you can go with the EDA. I believe the EDA has a meeting later this week. You could have a discussion at least initially to move down that path and start that process as well. But again, a lot of that you're already doing or the EDA is already going to be doing. This would just add something to that component. Would it help out to have a joint meeting between the EDA and a council? I mean, some we certainly can. I don't know if it's necessarily necessary as there are two members of the council that do sit on the EDA um that could certainly relay the thoughts of the council and I know I've certainly done that as well when they've had questions about various things going on around the city. Um yeah, I'll say that. Well, I think it would be prudent for us to explore the route of the EDA lease um as well as um putting the issue to a referendum just cost and timing. Um and and of course, you know, timing is of the essence in this situation. And and my comment would be again you I think everybody's understanding those are two mutually exclusive methods going here. They don't intertwine. They are separate. So it is two distinct paths you're dealing with here and at any time we can switch to correct one subject and go that way. Correct. We're just exploring options right now as we're doing our due diligence. Well, the EDA has got a meeting coming up. So it'd be nice to know how do they feel? Well, my brothers would be to pursue the EDA to to get it going so we know what's in process and then have staff review the financial condition to make sure we have the cash flows adequately to get us through over our referendum time period without any any herculean uh changes with other departments or anything um or anything that would cost us money because I think I'm I'm certainly wanting to support the the petition and all that, but there is a there's a consideration that a referendum might if it costs us more money than it's worth, then we have to consider that too because um I know that people have concerns about cost and things, but my and a lot of other people are trying to create look at this trying to create value and what's in the best interest of the taxpayer through this whole two to threeyear period. So, um, that's the position I would like to think about when we talk about a referendum. Also, is it making sure that's worth it? If I had to give an opinion, it would be similar to that. So, Bruce, are you saying that you would prefer to go the EDA lease route without exploring the referendum route in that cost? Okay. I just I'm paying both. Okay. Thank you. I don't think we should do any kind of wait and see kind of approach, right? Um we I don't feel want we want to be flatfooted. Okay. All right. I just was just wanted clarification. Thank you. So, do we need to make a motion uh on the direction we would like I guess I would prefer a motion just so that I can get a formal direction that you would like me to move that way. Okay. I guess I'll make a motion to uh go down dual paths and uh at that time as we get more cost and and everything uh in front of us, we can uh maybe come up with a game plan and uh make sure that we uh have the EDA start doing their process that they need to do to make sure that they can uh be in a situation to to do the lease. Second. Okay. A second by Rick. Any other comments? A question. Um, do we have any idea of timing when we would then get the information back to council? I will be trying to get that back to you in the next two weeks. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Sean. I just want to clarify. Um, so this is just the funding path. We're going to kind of stop the not stop it, but we're going to just go down two distinct different paths to decide where the funding mechanism is going to come from, but there is just so everybody knows there's basically no way that I'm stopping. That's why my motion is saying Yeah. Is there an option of I mean, theoretically, could you put a pause on the building itself, Scott or Josh? Theoretically, I mean, while this Well, I mean, we're certainly under contract at this point to continue forward with the building. Um, the theoretically, we could do anything, but as we've discussed, there certainly would be a cost, I believe, even in um pausing any sort of construction. So, I guess the the point that I want to make is that the the people that signed that signature, I think, thought that that that signature was going to be used to say either yes or no to this building. No, it's just the funding. Just Yes, Maggie. Let me finish. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So, um I just want to make sure that they understand that. So, because I thought that that was they thought that they were actually going to be able to have a vote on whether or not that building goes up. And I was kind of under that assumption, too, or that they could at least slow it down or stop it. And unfortunately, it took three weeks of them digging a hole and starting to build already. And did you read the top of the petition? No, I just Well, because the top of the petition does state Yeah. that this is only for the funding mechanism because I read it. So if you signed it and didn't read it, that's your fault. It's not No. Okay. But what I'm the point I'm trying to make though is so Brian wanted to use this as a learning experience too in discussion as far as if there was ever a situation like this again that you wanted to know because you wanted some detail on why some of the the signatures were rejected and at one point there was a problem. There was only 10 slots on there but an 11th person signed underneath it and they invalidated the whole sheet. So the point that I'm trying to make is is just so they understand that there was some there were some mistakes made in the petition stuff too which was going to answer one of your questions Brian as far as moving forward. So I just but you know as our council said we could have got to 250 names on three sheets and we wouldn't had to look at another sheet so we didn't have to go as far as we did. I I guess that's correct. So that's all you know once you hit the minimum it doesn't matter if all the other ones are not valid. Yeah I think rejecting is a is a strong word. They may not have been counted. There could have been discussions about it but the reality is that the sufficiency was met. There's no reason to delve into that further and waste time on. Okay. But the top of the petition did state that this was just for the funding mechanism and it had nothing to do that it was going to go back to a vote that the building was going to be a $2 million building. Right. I just I think there was some confusion there. Okay. Thought that there was they were going to be have the ability to vote yes or no of whether this get got built. Okay. Well, that was if that was they were told or they assumed it was incorrect. So, I have a motion and a second. Any other comments? Okay. All in favor say I. I. Any opposition? I. Okay. Passes 41 to go down the dual path. And uh as Josh stated, we should have an update by our next council meeting. All right. Thank you. Uh next on the agenda, the compensation study for uh our peer listening. Uh yes. So um month or two ago, the city council entered into a contract with Autosolve to do a compensation study um on the labor and benefits um that's uh C employees are currently um looking at. I know um since I've gotten here uh almost four years ago now, one of the big questions or discussions the council's always had was kind of who the city is getting compared to. Um and so we are actually right in that part of the process now. We've discussed it the last couple weekly meetings. Um and I've tried to keep you guys all kind of informed with a weekly update of how those are going. Um so within your packet, I did kind of include a list of where I kind of see potential peers being at. Um, but I think part of this conversation comes down to how the city council actually wants to use this compensation study. Um, does it want to compare directly with the regional market? I will say um, basically lumping in all cities of any size within a certain distance or does it want to use the study more as a comparison against who um, for lack of a better term its competitors are for labor? um because I believe those while there's many similarities on those lists, I do believe there's also differences on those lists. So, I didn't I did include in your packet um some cities I believe make both of those lists. Um cities such as Bellplane, Jordan, Elco, New Market, Prior Lake, Savage, Shakapei, um Northfield, both Lassour and Scott County. Um and then specifically for the um electric department, Great River Energy in Minnesota Valley. Um I then also included some lists of uh cities who would fit either or. So, um, while, uh, City of Montgomery, Cedar Lake, Lonsdale, um, may be regional, we don't necessarily, um, as a city, I would say, directly compete in terms of how we currently pay and benefit um, those particular cities. While cities uh such as Lakeville or Farmington, we have actually seen um employees leave for them um because they considered uh the driving distance to be uh acceptable and thereby making them what you would consider to be a labor competitor. So um part of the conversation I wanted to have with the city council tonight was how did we want to view this and then kind of where do we want to go with this list? Um so that way we can continue on uh with the study. Are we limited in scope by auto solve? I mean, well, what do you mean by limited? I mean, why can't we just use all the cities? So, they asked for 15 to 20 cities in their in their experience or organizations. I guess in in their experience, that was kind of the magic sweet spot for getting the correct amount of data without continually just pile on basically. So, we're at almost 20, right? 6 8 10 12. So, I believe I got 11 there in those cities I recommended. Um, and again, that those would just be my recommendations of kind of hitting both of those points that I think we should look at. Um, well, I think the more the better. And I do like the idea that we do include Montgomery, Lndale, Lassour. I think most residents would view them as counterparts to ours all within a 10-minute drive or 15 minute drive. Um, and then I see that there's also an uh the ability to go against the compared against the private sector. I think we should do that as well. Yes. And that is something they've already got worked in, especially for positions that may be unique. Um, but I did bring that up and they they certainly do have the ability to access a lot of that um localized data for um private sector for positions that would match across. And I'm not just talking electric linemen. I mean, no. No. I Yeah, I know. So um the way they made it sound something like an administrative assistant many times might comparatively across sectors they can certainly they have the data to be able to work that this issue is kind of uh touched upon I'm not sure if you're done John uh no yes go ahead Bruce um but one one that I kind of wrestle with at times because in in my past experience I've had the experience too of losing employees to bigger bigger communities or bigger I mean there's opportunity you want your employees to grow and develop and obviously when you do that you put them you make them more marketable to go somewhere else and get better benefits and things but that was just the cost of doing business I didn't necessarily we didn't necessarily price our compensation based on all the people that left to go to greener pastures because you would expect that to happen you expect people to that uh go to higher compensation because their skill set and opportunities that are in bigger communities. So I I know that people might not agree with that so much, but I'm not sure we want to necessarily position ourselves by trying to compare ourselves against uh the bigger towns, Apple Valley, Burnsville, and some of those. I know that we reflect often about well we lost so and so did this one and that one be and obviously they got a better situation and and bigger markets will do that for you. Um but I'm not sure we should necessarily put our compensation schedule drive it based on the people that leave for greener pastures. And and I guess part of that is I know especially as I speak to department heads um the cost of having to train in a new employee like there's certainly a cost not only a drain on the existing employees um but then the training costs that you put in or um that sort of thing. So, I certainly understand saying, "Hey, we're not going out here trying to be Lakeville or like maybe necessarily even beat Lakeville, but um by including a Mano or a Lakeville, you're you're saying we're acknowledging this is there and maybe if we can close the gap a little bit, we can say, hey, so and so might not leave and now we don't have that training cost of having to replace that person." Yeah. And and I and I this is where I agree to disagree with people because I I think that you run a risk of quite often trying to raise your whole schedule based on the loss of one or two people that have left and all of a sudden you're you're you're raising the whole schedule. And even though you have to train people, when you factor in the additional cost of your whole schedule going up for everyone based on that, that's a very expensive proposition. A lot of a lot of businesses in New Pra in this area have to train and develop their people because they leave. And that's a part of doing business in my mind, but and that's just been my personal experience. So it's it's difficult to try to hit heads with Apple Valley and Burnsville and Mano as an example and want to hey we got to compete with these guys. We might have to find a different strategy to get along without wanting to just base it on I I I'm nervous about that because our compensation schedules are going to get so high. not high, but they'll increase at such a higher rate. You know, I'm not um so that that's my two cents worth on that. So, I would tend not to want to Are you saying just use the first first two list and and not um involve the I'm just suggesting that to me we can get all these names you want. I I don't consider Apple Valley, Burnsville, Mano ones that I would put a lot of weight on is what I'm saying. So, we can get the information. I don't have any problem with that. The other issue alongside of that is if you're losing one or two people to Apple Valley this year, that's such a small sample. Even though we're a small group, 50ome people or whatever it is, one or two people going to that market, it's a small representative sample to try to judge make your whole compensation schedule based on those two people leaving. Um, so that that's the other consideration I think we should think about. So when we do that, I agree. We had an employee that went to Farmington, I believe it was, and then came back just because it's a better attitude here, you know, it wasn't based on the compensation plan. Do we do exit interviews when people leave? Yes, we do. Okay. The only other comment, and I think Bruce is going to give me a dirty look when I say this, but for me, it'd be nice to have information of municipal cities that have separate utility generation like we have or arrangements like we have. In addition to Great River, Minnesota Valley, are there other towns like us that have a utility compensation issue too that we've had to deal with? And and some of those names, I believe St. Peter is similar to us. Shakape maybe. Shakape I know does. Um and yeah, like some like St. Peter, that's kind of how they made this list. Both kind of that proximity and as well as that electric line. Um, so if there's two cities you're you're thinking that have utilities and and I know Bruce is certainly much better at that than I am in terms of proximity cities. To your point, it it is hard for us to find comparisons that have the exact same I'll call it staffing lineup that we have. Um, we we've tried to pick a couple cities that are close in our area here that do have like I I'll just call it generation facilities. U most cities do not have that that offering. Um, so we're going to try to we'll try to pull from that. And then as far as like the your other skilled positions like your lineman and so too, we I kind of base that on some of the neighborhood competition. You know, we have Great River Energy right here in town, Minnesota Valley, you know, close. So that information will be gathered for to be presented in this study also. um to the point we just we don't always want to be a training ground especially in some of the the technical fields where you need that that expertise to I'll call it keep the lights on. So I I got to be careful how we do that and I know you and I have talked to that point before already. So yeah, we do our best Bruce, but we have a hard time comparing cities that have the exact same setup that we do. I I don't want to take the whole show, but I guess my other comment is I don't know if there's a lot of this, even though the the list um is pretty geographic. I'm wondering uh if they could if we should consider towns that are like us, either in size, net tax capacity, location from the Twin City Metro distance. I think we certainly could, but I think then you certainly run into a a problem one way or the other quite frankly. Um getting into there are just certain geographic locations that for whatever reason they pay a lot higher and some that just pay a lot lower. And so um I believe if we look at the last one, there were a number from I'll say outstate even. Um, and I think you certainly run into that problem of the farther you get away from New Prague, the less like you are in the area. And would you consider that person or that organization to be a um competitor or a peer based only off their population or next tax capacity when their situation cost of living might be half of what it is here? Um, if you look at a city 200 miles away. Yeah, I was just trying to grasp that. the the surveys I'm more familiar with are have them broken out in various levels geographic and also size or similarity and we don't really have um you know Montgomery is a great town but the size and the dynamic is different than us but whereas Buffalo as an example might be truer to our size and similar taxing and distance from Minneapolis than we or some of those kind of ideas. But um but a lot of this is philosophical and we could be here all night doing it. So I'm comfortable with these if we want to pick from these or use these. Josh, are you looking for a decision this evening? If we could have one. Yes. this is kind of the next step in the process before they can really start collecting data and breaking it down. Well, I I kind of like the the first two list because it kind of gives us more of a geographical which is really when I look at it that's what we're competing against. I'd be fine with that too. I would as well. So, we're looking at the first list of where city of Bell Plane through Minnesota Valley Engineering or Energy and then City of Montgomery through City of L Center. Is that a motion? Yeah, I I will make a motion for that. Yep. I'll second. Okay. I got a motion and second by Sean Ryan to use the first two list. Any other questions, comments? um only that if that if if we get if there's room for four more have them add I mean if we're paying for 20 why not use 20 and yeah I mean so I my understanding of this is they basically get all the data and then it's how you use that data where do you want to position yourself among that data I know um just speaking with other administrators some cities over the last couple years have gotten a large pool of data and they've said you know what We're tired of losing people. We want to we want to be high in the data. Others have said, you know what, we're all right in middle lower portion. So, um yeah, I mean I can certainly you want me to fill up on 20? I can take those first two and then on 20. Well, I support the resolution. I don't want to not I'm not not supporting it. I'm just throwing it out there. Like Buffalo. I mean, I mean, just add a few names on the napkin or something if if they're if we not if they're not going to charge us more for doing it. Okay. So, I'll the motion that do the first two list and then look at maybe some similar size uh cities that are maybe geographically the same distance as New Prague is to Minneapolis just to get a flavor. Okay. Sean, are you still second? Yes, I was. Okay. Second the amendment. A motion and second with that amendment. Any other questions? All in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Next is C long-term financial plan. Uh yes. One of the items that's been on the visioning document for a few years now has been getting a long-term financial plan so we can get a better picture of the city's financial needs um over the next few years. Um and kind of this has been um would work in tandem with our budgeting process um and kind of give council and better staff of how various decisions uh will impact future needs. So with it on there I did reach out to um both Ellers's public financing and ABDO. Um as you know Ellers is currently our financial adviser and ABDO has done the city's auditing now for a number of years. Um, and kind of after reading through the two proposals, at this point, I would recommend proceeding with ABDO to perform the city's long-term financial plan. Um, combination of their proposal and the city's just continued familiarity with them. Um, kind of makes me confident and quite frankly, I don't think either of them could go wrong at this point. Um, but ABDO is kind of where I landed. The cost for providing these services to the city, according to ABDO, would be $25,000. Um, while this was not directly budgeted into the 25 levy to help keep that lower, um, it really it should fit into the overall budget, um, based on savings we've already seen on capital items this year, um, as well as higher than budgeted revenues, um, for various interest earnings. And so, um, the proposals does state that ABDO would kind of begin the process this fall if they're selected. So, I guess along those lines, I would recommend proceeding with ABDO, um, if we're working on a long-term financial plan. Did you get a bid from Aers? Uh, yes. Ellers, I believe was 33,000 maybe. You know, sitting there, Becky, I don't remember if you put that. I think it was 33 to 35 something like why wouldn't we put an RFP out like we did with the compensation study? Uh, yeah, I mean, we we I can certainly turn around and do that. I guess the reason why we didn't um is that uh familiarity with uh two firms that we already kind of work with and just reaching out and seeing what their general costs are. Um compensation study that was one where um I'm not I mean we did have a couple firms that were aware of that submitted but um kind of less familiar with that entire process. I personally like the idea of using uh someone who does our audits because they obviously understand the nuts and bolts of the city. Uh and being a financial person myself, I think that's an advantage. Uh to see how you know our bullet points are highlights and that in the audit you know they they they know the structure that we work under and our philosophy. I don't disagree. I just I just kind of curious why we didn't do a RFP and I don't want it to get into a habit of not doing that. Um I my feeling is is that the study's going to come in right around 25,000 with most of the even if we did have a RFP from 10 different places. So, I'm fine with the amount, but I'm a little concerned with just the uh the timing of it, wanting to do that. Now, obviously, as you mentioned, we've got the E EDA strategic planning process going and we'll have have we'll want to include the city council in that pretty soon. And then uh our bond parade issue with this police station dominating some of our time. Um and then we're in the zoning work right now, too. Um we've got a lot of different initiatives going on at the same time. So I'm just wondering, is this something that we can do a good job with and really participate in? And I I would say so in that um and I guess I'm I'm excuse me saying it from a city council thing because um I don't know about everyone else but um there seems to be more demands on us to really try to really understand a lot of these things that are going on. We're not just raising our hands to simple things anymore. So, I guess I guess I would like make sure that we're going to be prepared to do this. Yeah, that that's fair. Um I know certainly as you look to some of those whether it's the um police station or the EDA initiatives and whatnot, there's certainly cost to those and what will those costs look like going forward? And I think that this would help work in tandem with those. Um I know the for the zoning ordinance uh while um the I'll say the really heavy lifters are the planning commission on that and um the city council certainly involved and obviously um it gets approved by the city council in the end. Um EDA strategic plan that's really the EDA does a lot of heavy lifting um on the the detail work of that. Um, I think this long-term financial plan really becomes more of a city council because thing and there's not really a a direct board related to the long-term financial plan anyway. And even along those same lines, staff-wise, long-term financial plan, you're dealing more in the finance department. Um, EDA plan, you're getting more me and Ken. And then even in the zoning ordinance, you're certainly getting uh Ken and his staff working on that. So, um, I don't think we're at our limit yet, though. I don't foresee us I'm probably won't be bringing another thing forward at this point um till we get some things worked through. So my question is is we're going to be since I wasn't involved with the initial conversation uh about the vision. So we're going to be doing a five-year plan or rolling plan that will Yep. So this initial one would be a five-year financial plan and then just kind of working with ABDO kind of on what that looks like going forward. Okay. Yeah. So they would not only help us set it up but then they would help us understand how we would continue rolling that forward. So we'd always have when the budget process is done we also have a new fiveyear add another year onto our five-year plan and just keep that rolling. That would be my hope and kind of the convers kind of what I've expressed to them. But yeah, that'd be conversations we'd have. Okay. Well, I I just don't want speaking personally, I I just don't want a lot of things coming at us towards the end of the year, budget time, and then us to be in a position where uncomfortable trying to make decisions quickly. Um because I think we sometimes are faced with information in front of us in a short period of time expecting us to make thoughtful decisions and really if we're trying to have the compensation study done now by October that alone can drag into a long discussion and then to piggy back on that some of financial things that might come out of this other planning. Um, so I'm just throwing it out there. So maybe what I'm hearing is that this is something that we could tackle in 2026. Well, I support it if we if everyone wants to go ahead with it. I don't know what I don't know to what degree the city council is going to be involved in the financial plan. I agree with you because you're going to see the end result of it or not the end result but the the preliminary and then we pick at it and then something else is finalized. My expectation is that it would be a lot like a lot of plans that that go on. Um how involved does the city council want to be? Does it want to put a member or two that kind of works more intimately with it and bring it back? Um does it kind of want to hand it off and you guys take care of this and bring this back and we can have a discussion at the end? Um, and I think that would really be up to the council of how involved they want to be with this process. But, but how realistic would it be do to do this type of a study when, to your point, we're still working through the financing of the police station, the results of the compensation study, our budget discussions. So, we're kind of putting How do you see that working u fitting together? Well, I I I guess I see them being used in tandem because by making X decision about compensation, this is how it's going to affect the future. Um, but we but it's going to take us a long time to make that decision about compensation based on the study. And if that study doesn't come in until October, I mean, how many hours have we we spent talking about compensation when we haven't even had a study done? So, it does concern me that we would be making a a five-year plan based on discussions that we haven't finalized yet. I'm not trying to poke cold, but I mean, if you have this thought through and thought out, but I mean the the assumptions are so critical on a plan like this. And if we start out with compensation assumptions without even having gone through the compensation study, it just I understand tandem, but to me it's kind of like step forward or step forward and not necessarily tandem, but kind of tandem. Mhm. But no, I mean, so I guess I would support this, but I I would want I would hope you would consider doing this a little later. No, I mean certainly, like I stated in here, um Abdo says they would start in the fall. I mean, we would be I'm going to take a random stab and say this isn't going to take two weeks to do. Um, and so by doing that, if we're we're working fall of 25, I mean, we are in the I'd say at least the back half of our compensation study along those lines. If I mean, if right now the current estimates are get it done by early October with the compensation study. Um, yeah, but that doesn't give us time to discuss and we're talking October, November, December. That's, you know, three 90 days, which is which is nothing. I I but I think the compensation only one piece and it's one piece that probably can be easy slotted in because if you know what people's grades and all that stuff it's just a formula go in the next year move it up 4% and you know some people are moving up a different you know what I mean it'd be a lot of formulas that just need to be put the initial number put in and and and certainly if this is something I mean as we've discussed um if this is something that the council would feel just more comfortable overall pushing back a We can certainly do that. Um I know that this is just something we've talked about or been on the list for a couple years and so trying to move things forward. I guess I'm just not comfortable doing it this year because I understand mayor to your point that the compensation study, but we have and you've experienced this as well, the discussions that we had about comp and cost of living raises and if we're doing a study against other cities and and how do we want to um what what stance do we want to take? Do we want to say we want to meet this? We want to be middle of the pack. we're comfortable where we are. I I get a sense that we will have a few hours of discussion about that and I think that would impact a five-year financial plan. Yeah, I'm I'm fine with that, too. So, I mean, if someone wants to make a motion, I'm I'm willing to entertain. I would make a motion to postpone the study until a later date. uh date to be determined that being the long-term financial plan. Second. Okay. So, I have a motion by Maggie, second by Rick. Any other comments? All of them in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Next agenda, miscellaneous. I don't think there's anything we need to go on there. Uh, nope. Just of note, um we do our ambulance meetings quarterly now. As uh most of you know, uh Mr. Mayor, you're new to this. So, we've been meeting with the ambulance generally, uh getting quarterly stats coming back. Uh if you do look at the stats now, they do look a little off like uh we are seeing a lower um volume of calls. That's primarily to how they're um keeping their stats and doing trucking. are trying to um basically keep trucks local and responding locally. Uh where other times we might have a new Prague truck that ends up down at Farbo and hits two calls while down there and then those numbers getting added back because it was a truck stationed here. So um they numbers look down but they say things are going well for this year. Um, and so, uh, I know chief was also in on that, so I don't know if he has anything else to add, but um, otherwise it was moreformational and, uh, we'll probably be meeting on the second quarter here soon. Can I be invited to that meeting? Uh, yes, you actually usually will be on the list. Okay. Usually it is been myself, the mayor, and the two chiefs that attend those. Okay. Is there donuts? There are no donuts, but there are eclairs. So, Okay. Okay. And then we have some uh commission meetings and board meetings that you guys have perused. If there's no uh comments on any of that, then I guess we're at the final item. Rick, do you have anything else to add? No, I do not. Bruce, anything else to add? General. Yeah, I had some questions of the attorney since he's in in presence here. Two two questions, I guess. Just getting back to a comment I thought I heard you say about the referendum, the wording of it and whatnot. Um, council members cannot advocate for for the referendum one way or the other. Uh, personally, you can certainly state what your position is. You can't spend public funds on that. So, so you can't speak on behalf of the council in a sense. So, we couldn't put like a written thing on the website. Correct. It wouldn't be there. And obviously if you're moving it forward and you've had votes before on the project and people could look at the minutes, they know what your positions are, but you can't expect dollars to do advocacy for this. So there's a fuzzy line in there, but um it doesn't prevent you in your first amendment rights from stating where your position is. I'm not suggesting or advocating any money be spent on on it. Yeah. I I would just want to make sure that we understood that when we walk out of these doors what we can say or can't say about it and and you can certainly state your support or or disapproval or but you can't you can't say that um as an example financial advisor suggests that it's going to be a lower interest rate if you vote you can state that that's a fact you can state all facts that are available I I think what he means and I know um when I lived out in Colorado the city I lived in usually during before election would send out a booklet trying to exp explain everything that was going on. Now, granted, they gave both the pros and the cons of everything, but we couldn't send out a bunch of flyers saying, "Vote for this and this is why or correct, vote against this and this is why because that's spending money to print out the flyer and stop time to send that out." Correct. Well, then when the the school board asked us to participate in the referendum a year or two ago, um that was actually wrong. I think they were requesting just a verbal support. Um, well, they wanted to send out copies of this and that and yeah, I can't I don't know what the school district did in that, but I I don't recall that, I guess. But the reality is it really comes down in advocacy where you're spending public dollars on that advocacy. So, you do not lose your rights to say I ought, you know, you should vote for this or I I'm voting for this because of X, Y, and Z. And if it's factually based, it's it's fine. And we can talk about that further in detail if we need to. But it's not a perfect right line, let's be honest. But if you're getting into the point of public dollars being expended, then it is a defined line you've crossed at that point in time. Okay. This is a totally different question, but it's um came in my mind when we're talking about the public hearings and the process of public hearings. Yep. If we have individuals that are present physically here for a public hearing and they that's fine. But what happens if our um and then we have people online because my understanding is the online ability is just as if they're here in the meeting. Yeah. People but what happens if our equipment goes down like it did one time not too long ago for 50 seconds and that person didn't did not have the opportunity to speak? Yeah. Technically for in Minnesota, you're not required to broadcast any meeting. You do not have to do that. You're doing that for the convenience of people to watch wherever they may be. Um there are certain times if you had one of the council persons, uh zooming, you know, uh teams or whatever platform you use doing a a video conferencing meeting where then you would have to have it available for the public if feasible. However, again, it's only in the observation mode. It's not where they can come in and start doing things. And um So are we doing that wrong then? Now No, you're not doing it wrong. You're actually overdoing what because we're we're allowing people to speak online. Yeah. No, you're actually overdoing what you need to do. So that's not wrong. It's just you're giving another opportunity beyond what is required is what I'm saying. So if they wanted to speak at a public hearing and took advantage of the online and all of a sudden the our computer went down, we we don't have to redo the public hearing. No. No. Absolutely not. he can say, "Well, I didn't get a chance to talk." And I guess I can talk further with Josh about that in staff, but I I you know, it typically for public hearings, you're saying be here for the public hearing. And um I did not know we were allowing that interaction like that. In most cases, you would not. It's there for the video reviewing, not interaction. And again, that's going beyond what you have to do. You do not have to broadcast meetings. That's not a requirement. Yeah, it it seems so it seems strange to me, but state law can be strange, but Oh, absolutely. We we can't do it unless we're in a public situation and we're sick and all this. That just changed. And as of May, you do not have to identify where you are. You do not have to have a um be sick, ill, whatever it may be. And uh it's much more convenient for council persons to do that from a non-public setting. We do not even have to notify where you are or the rationale for it. legislature changed that this year. It's effective the end of May. If one of us were in the hospital, we could b go, you know, right from there. Correct. You don't have to be in the hospital. He's saying you don't have to be in the hospital. You can if you want to be in the, you know, and I and I've I've said and where this question has come up in a couple of the communities, it's like I think you still got to use it very judiciously and only when it's really relevant because if you get city councils where everybody's doing that, still have to have one person there. But if if the majority are doing that all the time, I think the legislature will look at that and say that's not appropriate. I mean the idea is again you're having here at the dis have discussion with with staff and and citizens. So I would use it very judiciously. I'm just concerned about the legitimacy of the hearing if someone I understand about that. I I mean again I I I would typically say no. You do not have that type of setting where you're required to do it. So I would not allow that. I think it should be in person. If we're back to where the meeting is a setting where a council person is not present, then you would have to allow it in that setting. I think you'd have to allow citizens to be able to have a little more interactivity there, but not really. I I it's a new law and I think it's it's one of those that I've always said. I think the legislature went beyond where a lot of people thought would happen and I think you're going to see it walk back a little bit if you see full councils not showing up for council meetings in city hall. I think it's going to change. So don't do that. But then that's my recommendation. You have the same issue if a council person is at Perkins or somewhere and they're they lose their internet service. Yep. Were they here at the meeting or weren't they at the meeting? And again, you still have the requirement that you have to be able to be seen. Uh you're on video all the time. you're able to hear, be heard, and hear everything going on in the meeting. So, all those requirements are still there. It's just that it doesn't have to be public and you do not have to have an identified reason. That's what's changed and been removed from the statute. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Bruce? Maggie? I don't have anything this evening. Sean, um just one quick thing. Can we get um in regards to the police station, just for full transparency for a lot of people out there that are wondering, can we get um I don't we don't need a line item, but can we get the as the bills come in, can that website be updated with the cost of the items that are coming in? Yeah, I mean, yeah, those are available to um for our packets, but yeah, I mean those are open costs certainly to the public. Yeah, I mean they're paying for it. So, I mean, I think they want to I've had several requests that they want to see what is going in there. And I would just throw out there that that's good information, but it doesn't tell you what our liability is because if it's not built yet, that doesn't mean we don't owe right as it's being built and whatnot. I mean, there's and a lot of it could be wrong and I'm not even sure, but you know, there's out there. Yeah, there's a lot. So it clear it up just so that we look like we're not hiding anything and but yet they have the full right to see what they're paying for. So okay, anything else? Uh no, that was it. Okay. I don't have anything else. So I guess I'll make a mo motion for adjournment. Second. Second by Rick. All in favor say I. Any opposition? We're adjourned. Thank you everyone.