I will call to order the regular meeting of Dayton City Council for June 9th. Stand for the pledge. >> 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. Need a motion and a second for the agenda. >> Make a motion. I'll second. Third. Go with Stephanie. Um, any changes? >> All right. All those in favor say I. I. >> All those opposed say no. >> Passes five to zero. On to consent agenda. Need a motion and a second. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. and discussion. I have a go ahead correction for uh item A the minute in the minutes um on page seven talks about the um the uh storage container uh discussion and the motions made around that and um mentions that the motion that I made for uh to approve the ordinance was for the 5 acre minimum version. What I had motioned was the 2acre, the original version of that. >> That was all I had on that one. >> Anybody else have anything? >> Y. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. All those opposed say no. Consent passes five to zero. on to um open forum. Oh, open forum response. We don't have any of this. Great. Open forum. Um anybody here for open forum? Come on forward. Limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name and address. No council action will be taken and items will be referred back to staff. So your name and address. I'm not a very good public speaker, but I got a couple dumb questions >> regarding road repair. Can somebody give me a legitimate reason why we're spending all the money doing a major repair other than creating a profitable account for the engineering firm, whoever they might be. And those roads aren't that old and they weren't that bad and they weren't in legitimate repair needing it there. But whatever, you know, somebody approved it and somebody spending money which I'm part of and if the same engineering firm that in control of that created Pine View South Diamond Grove, there's a hump by the first road that goes to the west and you could actually roll a squad car on the chase on that hump. And I've gone over at 40 miles an hour and I won't do that very often, but it's kind of dumb and kind of foolish. And now the new road that was done last fall, you know, it's got cracks. There's 21 cracks between Linewood Lane and Diamond Lake Road. And here's some information as to why it might be their animal. Well, it's a poor quality of asphalt that was used. And if that's the same quality of asphalt that's going to laid down today, we'll have the same damn cracks. And what happens when they get full of water and freeze and thaw and freeze and thaw and freeze? You talk about chuck holes. That's all I got to say. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Anybody else here for open? Anybody online for open form? >> Oh, >> I'm just following up um from two weeks ago. >> Name and address. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Victoria Rice, 13931 London Lane North on Diamond Lake. Okay. And a couple of weeks ago, I was talking about the speeding and asking for some speed bumps or a lower stop sign or even other a stop another stop sign. So, I'm just wondering if there's been any followup on that. We did not. So, we will have something at the next meeting. >> Yep. Mayor Council just sent something out again on this week's weekly update to get a response back. If I not received a response back from you, I'd appreciate one. Once I do get a response back as a majority of the council, I will then provide that in the um to the mayor for the open forum response that we have on the meeting agendas. >> Excuse me. Who do you get your information? Where do you get your information or your >> So I um I will provide the information that's provided in open forum by yourself and or any other resident that were to come in and then I ask that question to the council in an email on my weekly update that I provide to them and then they will provide me back a response. Once I get a majority of the response that's cons basically a consensus from the from the council I will then give that open form response to the mayor and he will read those at the next council meeting >> and that would be according to my um statement >> your question correct your request >> got it thanks a lot >> if you could follow up and just write that down that'd be great thank you so much >> I will do that for sure thank you >> thank you >> anybody else open forum >> all right >> anybody on our >> Yep you are here for open forum if Use the raise your hand function. Not seeing anything, mayor. >> Okay, we will move on to staff consultant council updates. Zach. >> Yep. Good evening, mayor, members of council. Open filing period has closed as of last week. Based on open filing period, we will still have a primary in August as noted in the communicator and in the website, but it will not include any city council or mayor positions like we may have seen in the past. City staff did want to thank council as well for the approval of 28 less days to be utilized for absentee voting. Um that was approved on at the last council meeting. I did hear that many many times from the individuals along with the election judges because it does save a lot more than just hours of staff time um and resources. It just saves overall processes are much quicker and simpler. So they wanted to say thank you. As a reminder, next Friday, June 19th, city offices will be closed for the Junth holiday. It is one that is also um done by banks and such. So, it'll be a common um item for people to be off on next Friday, June 19th. Uh and then final one is that we did have 13 applicants for the HR position and had 21 applicants for the planning position. We are in the process of scheduling interviews and or scoring those positions and just want to provide an update to the council that we did have a significant number of positions that were or should say applicants and we will keep the council ab breast of any changes. So, thank you. >> Are they decent pools? I guess >> I am not part of the planning one. So that would be something that you could ask John when he get around to his staff update. But for the HR ones, there are ones that do seem that they should be able to be a fit for Dayton. And we look forward to the seven interviewees that we see. Um believe it's next week. So >> awesome. Exciting. >> Uh mayor and council, just a couple of updates. Um Dayton Farms Park. Um the irrigation is completed over there. The pickle ball courts been surfaced and the nets are up and ready for use. Uh the basketball court has been surfaced and the volleyball um nets um are all installed. Um the we still need to have the trees installed over there. Yeah. And there's still some punch list stuff to be uh taken care of over there. So uh it's getting very close to completion. Um I just wanted to note that it's family fun night at Stevens on Friday. Um starts at 5. Um there's food trucks, uh ninja course, bounce houses, and the teddy bear band will be performing. Chief, >> good evening, mayor and members of council. Um we are starting it looks like uh ladder training um probably June 25th. That'll take us through roughly September 17th thereabouts. Um trying to figure logistics is to try to get people to as many of the trainings as possible and end up with uh a certification. However, with that, bringing to your attention um some challenges with that. Um so, looking for feedback in the future, not tonight at all, but um we don't necessarily have a good place to train with that truck. Um based on uh possible destruction of the back parking lot because of the weight of the truck as we continue to go in and out um as well as trying to spray the water someplace when we do use that piece of equipment. So, right now, I've worked with Marty to come up with a plan to keep it out of the soccer field to the best of our ability and focus on the trees to the east. Um, but I did make some adjustments in the capital improvement plan um for some concrete addition um so that we can train appropriately back there. So, just food for thought for future, but uh just know that that was an adjustment that I made a request in the CIP. >> Chief, >> good evening, mayor, members of the council. Just let you know officers will be um doing scenariobased training for active shooter next week uh Tuesday and Wednesday and that's in coordination with Rogers and other cities in in the area. Um we are also seeing an uptick in a lot of juvenile complaints. Um so if you see any suspicious activities late at night, please call 911. >> John, >> uh two items. Uh, one, I received notice from Henipin County that we're receiving a $60,000 planning grant. So, this is something that we can use towards the 20 2050 comprehensive plan. And then we also received notice from the Met Council that our population as of April 1st, 2025 is 11,347. And then, uh, Council Member Vaness, since your answer to your question, we did receive qualified applicants. >> Okay. Thank you. No updates. >> I'm good. Scott, >> um last week we talked about putting in a moratorum for um where non-residential and residential above each other until we can get setback figured out. Um, and I know there was in one of your weekly updates a question about that about possibly putting a a wider scale moratorum until we get our new person in and like um and so I was just curious where we're at in that process and what you needed from us to for that. >> Did you ask answer his questions? >> I did. Well, that one. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep. So, um, council van asked I did get enough direction I believe at the last council meeting. I'm working with John to figure out um you know is that the right direction? You know, trying to make sure that we're working the best for our our staff and also our residents and or future developers and whatnot that everyone's getting the best service possible and not just uh um I'm going to use mediocre service as the answer. So, um I will continue to work with that, but you will see a moratorium on the June 23rd meeting no matter what um with council. At a minimum, it'll be the direction from the commercial budding residential. Um, but it may be something more drastic than that just based on the direction I got from council. I did get enough support. It sounds like that you're supportive of staff making a direction if we need to have a moratorum on development north of 94 essentially most of our city just because a lot of it is not within 2020 anymore that isn't already developed. Um, trying to just help out keeping staff levels available so that we can deal with the new things that come in each and every day. So, I appreciate the support from the council on that. So, like I said, I will see you will see something on June 23rd meeting no matter what. Okay. >> And we will I will work with John to figure out what that looks like. So, >> okay. >> July >> July, >> sorry, July 23rd >> or June 23rd. >> I thought it was the second meeting in July. So, the >> uh we we would have the plan commission hold a public hearing uh the first meeting in July and then second to >> So, they do need a public hearing on a moratorum, right? I was kind of wondering >> if we have a moratorum on so let me back up. So we're talking about two moratoriums. So one on uh development for non-residential adjacent to residential >> that does not require public hearing but it's good practice to have one. >> Okay. >> Um the second if we have a moratorum on just development in general that will require a public hearing. >> Okay. >> Okay. So it kind of depends on which one you Okay. I will just say from a as someone who built their house here when there was a previous transition and um was given some incorrect information by someone who was new. Um I would rather put a little bit of a time out until we get everyone caught up to speed um instead of having incorrect information being given out to builders and developers and whatever. So just um I just want to put that plug in as as someone luckily it worked out because I knew how to read code myself. So so I was like no that's not right and I know that's not right. Um but yeah there's there's something very big to be said about um making sure everyone is up to speed before people are building things. That that's a big deal. So that was it. That's all I >> Okay. Um I have a couple things. So, I've gotten a couple very um concerned calls from Zack Brown about their development. Where is that DA at? >> Mayor and council. So, I have talked to Zack Brown numerous times over the last few weeks. Um, he received his DA last Wednesday and was not aware that he had received it. >> Ah, >> so >> okay. >> Um, >> so he's good to go. >> Um, yeah. So, we are waiting on his I believe his engineer got it to us today and or yesterday. So he has basically has finalized D. Should have it tomorrow. >> It's been on my number one list to do since yesterday. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> He should have it by tomorrow and then we'll see my alarms after that. >> Okay. The other thing I have so planning commission, I don't know if anybody watched it, but um it it's concerning uh Tom Dean's development down on on uh 113. Um, so we had voted to approve that PUD. Um, and the public good was the roundabout at the time. Um, and I asked about this at the time, we don't we still don't have control over that property. And I guess I don't know if we could do anything about this, but I'm concerned that we it will come time for that roundabout and we will still not have control of that property. Um, and I don't know if I don't know where we go if we don't get control because now we have a mess. So, um, and we end up with the similar thing that we got south of the freeway where we counted on something and we did not have that control. Um, what happens if we don't have that control? >> Mayor, just for clarification, when when you say that property, you're talking about the property of Fernbrook >> needed for the roundabout. Okay. >> As far as I know, I don't even know if anybody's talked to them. >> May >> Yeah, mayor and council. I'm going to look at Jason and John for this answer, but >> yeah, there was a corridor con study completed on it. We have preliminary boundaries of the areas needed, but yes, there has not been initiated contact directly with the property owners on the acquisition. We've it's it's been limited to date to just a open house, >> right? >> Um voicing that this these would be needs, but not individually discussed. So, what kind of mess do we end up with if they just say no? >> Right. Without the land rights, the roundabout could not be completed. Um, I I would expect it would have to become a constructed T intersection. >> Okay. >> Or it would be left as is on the 113th configuration, >> except >> that was our public good, >> right? Except Well, I argued it wasn't public good. Um but so so if they leave it as is I mean we've we've we've approved um at least the preliminary on it. So how how would how would it be left as as is >> without the land rights? I'm not sure what the option would be. Just you would not you are right. If the land rights are not there, there would not be space for a roundabout. >> And then that money, right, if I'm remembering correctly, shifts to the other intersection because if it's all the updates to 113th and then it can be used at 117th >> making sure that that's >> but then but then there's a mess. >> Oh, I agree with you. >> Okay. >> I'm just like making sure that I'm understanding like that that money then shifts, right? Because that was what the motion >> Well, the money was to do the roundabout. No. And then the excess was supposed to go to the other ones, not >> know. I thought the money was to do any improvements needed at 113th and once that was satisfied, then anything left over would shift to 117. So if nothing happens at 113, it would all then shift. Correct. >> That's your understanding. Okay. >> Want to read the development agreement to be sure. I that that's different from what I remember. Oh, >> so I'm thinking the the majority of the money is tied to theund I'm going to call the 114th intersection. Y >> um mine is I want to say it was like $175,000 or something that went towards the study. >> Can you double check I don't want to add to your plate, but can you double check that maybe? And >> I I believe there's a timeline in the DA. I don't remember what that limit is. So 10 years I thought that's what I remember. Yeah, because I had some issue with that because the way it was initially worded, he could just not do the final plat and then our clock would run out and we'd have no money. So, we did I know I we requested an adjustment for that specifically. And I thought yes, it was the money will first go to the 114th intersection and anything left over goes to the other 117th. And I would argue if it's zero dollars at 113, then it all goes to 117th or 11. >> It was like two two million. >> 2 million 175. >> Correct. >> Minus the 175. Um, >> and we've already received the 175. >> Yeah. For the study that was already, >> but it's puzzling that we haven't tried to get that land. >> I mean, you know, were we going to wait till the whole development was over before we tried to get >> process thing or what? But it it I I it does seem like when we do these things that we should lock property down um that we are counting on. So I don't know how you do that. Again, every once ask if there's a checklist for soft certain stuff, and I don't know if there is, but I mean, to me, if you're counting on access here and this approval is kind of based on this access, then seems like Yeah, I don't know. It just seems like there was something seems like we should have access, but locked in. So, >> mayor, I would say that I think I think it truly comes down to amount of staff with in a band bandwidth to be able to do those kind of things. And it's if it's not something that's immediate, it's just pushed again to the back burner. As much as I don't want to say that that's the truth, it's just that's what happens. Those more immediate needs and then they end up getting maybe forgotten and or lost until later on and we go, "Oh crap, we forgot to do that part." deal. >> Not trying to justify anything, just being honest with the council of that's what typically happens just cuz we do have a lot of immediate needs and unfortunately we have more. >> I understand that. I I guess my concern would be that we approved something that we really in counted on >> Yep. >> this and we didn't have this. So >> I would agree. >> Okay. I don't have anything else. >> Um nothing from me. >> I'm good. But I appreciate all the updates. This was really nice. Um H item H audit >> M council we have Chris Kopic and Frost um from Clifton Larson Allen to give us our audit. There is a copy in front of you. Um you may take that one home if you'd like. If you do not want that one, you may leave it here and we can utilize it for public record. So >> is it different than what's in the packet, the online packet? >> Uh no. >> Okay. Oh, great. Then I don't need the physical one because I have the online one. >> Um, thank you very much C uh, mayor and council for allowing us to present the audit here tonight. PowerPoint, Zack, is that >> Click the button. >> Click the button. Perfect. Thank you very much. All this fancy technology. Uh, once again, my name is Chris Kopic. I'm a principal with Clifton Larson Allen. I'm here with Frost Bowen Bailey and he was the senior on the city's audit this year. As a reminder, this is our first year working with the city. So, um, coming in brand new, so that means unfortunately a little bit extra work for for staff and for everybody as we start to get to know the the city and processes and controls and all of that type of stuff. So, um, we do want to thank Zach and the entire team here for all of his, uh, time and effort. one kind of getting us up to speed with city and background and history and all the development going on, but then also um just want to make sure that uh we're here to answer questions as we go. Feel free I I'm fine if you interrupt me as we go. Otherwise, there's always an opportunity at the end for um any questions that you have. So, really just real brief agenda. We're going to go through some required communications that we have. We'll go through the actual audit results. Frost is going to go through uh a few slides on some financial results and then the last uh areas, we call it emerging issues, but really what that is is keeping the entire council up to speed on what the governmental accounting standards board has been up to over the last few years and what's going to be impacting the city over the next couple. So, as we go through this, um we have a a couple of items in here really just um these are required communications that we have as your external auditors. These are required under auditing standards. So really that first one is just that reminder that the audit provides reasonable not absolute assurance as to the numbers and the results within your financial statements. We say reasonable assurance because auditors we don't audit every single transaction. So that's the only way you can get absolute assurance. So that's why we say it's reasonable assurance. We'd also let you know if we had any significant accounting estimates that rose to what we consider a high degree of uncertainty. We didn't have any. So everything that's included in your financial statements are very common for a city within Minnesota. Thinking useful lives of assets, collectibility of receivables, pension liability, all of those types of things. Very common, very um similar to what we see out there. Um one of the things we do need to let the council know is if we have any what we call uncorrected or past adjustments. So these are just smaller items that we found through the audit process that really should be corrected, but it's not really a huge number or a huge error. So we kind of just either fix it through the current year or it doesn't get recorded. So this year we had a couple of those. That first one I is related to some lease accounting. So um previously the the term used for one of the um cell tower leases that the city has wasn't calculated to the correct term. So chewed that up this year was about a $53,000 difference. Really just impacts a receivable and a liability at the end of the day. So, no real bottom line impact for you. Um, this year we also had um another one related just to correcting the recording of where some of your PFA dollars were getting reflected as debt. So, debt didn't change in total for the city, just kind of corrected where it was being reported for the city. It was about $220,000. We'd also let you know if we had any what we consider corrected misstatements. So, these are items that we would require or need to have fixed within the financial statements. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to give you a clean audit opinion. We didn't have any. So, very positive to to report on that. So, all the information we got from the city outside of just those couple of what I mentioned is uncorrected in the statements. Very good. We were able to come in and do our job as the auditors and audit. We didn't have to fix and clean up and do all that kind of stuff. So, very positive there. We'd also let you know if we had any difficulties or disagreements in performing the audit. These are an area where I was say no news is good news. if we had a difficulty or a disagreement, we'd let you know well before a public meeting such as this. So, kind of where that stands on there. As far as the actual audit results this year, um the city received an unmodified or clean audit opinion on your financial statements. That's the highest level of assurance that any entity can receive, regardless of whether you're a government, nonprofit, for-profit, publicly traded, unmodified is the opinion you want to see in your financial statements. and that's what the city received. As part of your financial statement audit, we're also uh required to look at internal controls. We don't provide an opinion on your controls. Our responsibility as your auditor is to let you know if we identify deficiencies in your control processes. Um the one item that we have out there that we consider a material weakness is just segregation of duties. There's just a limited number of staff that are involved in in some of the more key financial cycles for the city. So it's just an inherent item that we have within a small city such as yourself. So really just making sure that the the city continues to just make sure you have the checks and balances that you can put in place, make sure they're there and try to keep them in place. So the only way really to resolve that one is you have to add staffing. And I know that's a lot easier said than done. So, um, this year we also looked at the, um, federal grants that the city had. Since you expended more than a million dollars in federal grants this last year, we had to come in and actually do a compliance audit related to that. So, looking at that, um, that was coming under your, um, HUD grant that you received for some of the water improvements that the city has, we had three items that we, um, classified as material weaknesses in that. The first one, suspension and debarment. This one, it's not a compliance issue. The the vendor that or the contractor the city uses is not suspended, not debarred. But what that comes down to is um for federal compliance, you're supposed to maintain documentation that shows you verified that before you actually contracted and issued payments. The city used SAM.gov as you're supposed to, but you're just missing the dates to show and prove that it was done before contracting. So really just making sure that that process is cleaned up and there's a way to retain that data. The other way to get around that is some of those contracts that are used, especially for federal grants, you can have what's called self-certification language in there. So, you include a clause in there that basically says the contractor by signing this agreement certifies they're not suspended or debarred. Either of those two options are appropriate for federal compliance, but the the city's contract for that project did not include that self-certification language. So recommendation is if you can work with uh legal counsel, engineering, those types of things, just make sure you try to get that clause in there if you know it's federal dollars. It's just easier and protects the city for that piece. Um the second one repeated related to reporting. This kind of goes back to the segregation of duties thing. There's only basically Zach involved in a lot of this. So there's no formal review process and and things like that over the reporting that needed to be done for that grant. So unfortunately just kind of an inherent limitation of having you know just a re um certain number of staff here. The last one related to special provisions. This is kind of a unique one for the city. So when the city first was awarded these dollars working with your representative from HUD, they actually said you could go ahead start submitting reimbursements, things like that. Came back after the fact and HUD basically said, "Wait, stop. You need to have an environmental review done and complete it." So even though the city did not receive any funds for some of those first draws, um so you didn't have any compliance issues, it just comes down to a control issue. Basically saying it's the city's federal grant. The city should know all of the requirements of that grant. Unfortunately, you got stuck in a bad spot relying on that representative from HUD that gave incorrect information. So none of these are a real big concern or anything like that. No compliance issues, just cleaning up some of the controls around that. So the other item that we look at as as far as our financial statement and our audit work goes is we actually look at Minnesota legal compliance. This is something the state auditor's office requires us to look at for all of our governmental audits and with within Minnesota for cities. It's broken down into seven different categories ranging anywhere from claims and dispersements, um cash and investing, contracting, conflicts of interest, um uh claims, dispersements, tax increment, and then they also have just a miscellaneous catch-all. So, we have one item in there that's u made it to the letter related to your tax levy for debt service. within state statutes for Minnesota, they actually have a requirement that um requires city cities to levy 105% of your principal and interest payments or your resolution certifying your levy has to clearly state why you're not. The city actually did that for almost all of them except for one dead issuance that for some reason just got missed in that resolution. So you were there about 95% of the way just making sure that you're truly following all of those pieces. So the other thing just to keep in mind with that um that we see especially in smaller communities is um especially around contracting and just um those types of things make sure that we're properly following all of the Minnesota statutes for that. In Minnesota, they break down your contracting and bidding requirements into three different categories. Under 25,000, 25 to 175, and then anything over 175,000. Those do differ from federal compliance thresholds for purchasing. Federal compliance actually has five thresholds. Um, typically if you go to Minnesota's, it's more restrictive, so you're safe at the federal level. But really the keys there is to when I'm saying making sure you're following statutes is uh the big piece is is under 25,000 it's open purchase or you have to solicit quotes. So making sure that if you're in some type of a direct negotiation make sure that you're going through a proper quoting process so you're not causing um extra work for staff or anything like that. Just making sure you have all of that stuff in place ahead of time. And while we know a lot of times those negotiations are done in good faith to save money for the city and stuff like that, limited resources, sometimes at the end of the day it causes extra work on the backside, just trying to make sure we're keeping everybody in compliance with statutes. So just kind of a word of caution there that we see that in a lot of small communities we work with. So just keep that in mind as you go. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Fer Frost to go through some of the financial results. >> Thanks Chris. Yeah, I'm just going to go over some real highlevel results. Um, touching on our property tax levy and tax capacity here. Um, as you can see over the past 5 years, that total tax capacity has been increasing. Um, which is great to see with that consistent tax rate. Um, as your uh tax capacity increases, you're able to keep your rates steady while increasing your tax levy. So, that's really good and healthy to see for the city. Looking at the general fund a little bit here. Um revenues increased about a $100,000 from the prior year, which is just about 1%. So pretty small there. And expenditures were uh at $590,000 increase or about 7.4% increase. Um with that, we saw that the fund balance um compared with expenditures stayed really consistent from last year to this year with last year being at 40%, this year at 30%. Um, looking specifically at revenues here for the general fund. Um, you can see that last year and this year stayed pretty consistent with our breakout where taxes and assessments are your main chunk of your revenues for the general fund and then smaller portions are coming from licenses and permits, uh, fines, charges for services, and then other intergovernmental revenues. Looking at the expenditures for the general fund, um like I said before, they did go up about uh 590,000 or 7.4%. Uh and most of that was coming from the parks and wreck department and the public safety departments uh which both increased uh close to 20% whereas the general uh government uh functions and public work functions actually decreased some. Uh looking at the budget results, um while some of the individual sources and uses had some variances, um overall we were really close to what budget uh expectations were. Um looking at revenues, uh total we were just under revenues by 1% and looking at expenditures, uh we were also under by about 0.4%. So very close to what total budgets were. Um looking at the water uh the business fund um this year we saw that operating revenues decreased a little bit where operating expenses actually increased uh resulting in an operating loss this year. Um however looking at the sewer fund we saw the opposite where operating revenues increased by a lot which resulted in operating income uh this year for the first time in the last couple years. >> And I'll pass it back to Chris here. Can I interrupt for a second? This is a question we have for Zach. We base revenue sewer on the water. I >> water usage. >> So you're asking why is there an opposite? So, the reason for the change in the sewer financials that you're seeing today is related to the assessment that was done back in 2020 for the um sewer extension that was done underneath 94 to the south side of 94 for the five properties on the south side of 94. That did have a 5-year delay on it and was certified in 2025 for collection. So that is the reason why it is art I'm going to call it artificially inflated because had you not had that it would look the exact same as it did the following the previous year the amount of dollars in that assessment roughly $700ish,000 >> that got us positive >> that got us positive in the operating income. So looks great on the financial statements. >> Yeah. I would argue that it may or may not have been artificially there because back in 2020 it that's when it was actually realized but we don't actually realize it until it goes in the books which is in 2025. So >> okay normally they would follow follow exactly each other. I'm still reviewing the water fund one to figure out what that looks like cuz um >> what happened there. >> Yeah. What happened and why it was so different than I was expecting it. I I will follow up with the council once I >> water lawns left off on or >> no no none of that. So I will follow up with the council. >> Okay. And then really the the last slide here is really just keeping the council um informed of what the governmental accounting standards or gazsby board has been up to over the last couple of years that are going to be impacting the city's um financial statements especially over the next year or two. The first one, statement number 103. This is um the first of probably two that are going to be kind of coined financial model report um financial reporting model improvements. Um you can put quotations around that because that's always debatable whether the Gazsby board's actually improving things or not or just creating more work for for city staff and auditors. So um good or bad as well that kind of that second one that I'm expecting is going to be coming is still not even issued yet. So you're still looking several years down the road. But this first one, statement number 103, this one's really going to impact three main areas for the city's financial statements for the December 31st, 2026 audit. The first one is that one of the very first sections of your financial statements. It's called the management discussion analysis. It really gives the readers of the financial statements a highlevel um overview of what happened in the city over the last year compared to the prior year. Uh the version that the city uses today was actually a result of Gazsby 34. So 23, four, five years ago. So statement number 103 is essentially going to force local governments to completely rewrite that management discussion and analysis section. It's going to focus kind of on five key areas and it wants to have more policydriven narrative. What are we doing as governance, as a city to drive some of these results? are we purposely adding dollars to the budget for a special project or whatever that may be. So, it's just going to be rewriting that. Um the second piece of that within the enterprise funds, so water and sewer, it's going to introduce a new category called a non- capital subsidy. So, it wants to essentially break out if there's um anything that the enterprise funds are receiving as a um say a non- capital grant. Sometimes you do just get operating grants in there. Um, believe it or not, we do have some cities we work with. They actually have to levy for water or sewer because they can't increase their rates fast enough to keep up with debt payments or something like that. Those are considered non- capital subsidies. So, it's revenues coming into the fund that are artificially keeping user fees lower than what they should be to be essentially a a business type activity. So, the nice part at the end of the day is it's not going to change your bottom line. It's just going to kind of change the buckets it goes into. So, we'll work with Zach and and everybody at the city just to make sure things are properly classified for next year. The last piece with that with um that's going to be impacting under 103 is going to be related to your budget to actual statements. So, your budget to actual statements are going to essentially include a a notes page after it. Now, that's has um documentation as to why things were significantly over or under budget. So providing readers just more context as far as what's going on within the within the financial statements and why things are over or under budget. The next one that's applicable for December 31st of 2026 is statement number 104 related to disclosing some of your capital assets. So over the last several years, local governments had to introduce new capital assets. It was leased assets, subscription assets. If you had public private partnerships, you had different types of intangible assets. you had to you had to start now including your financial statements. Those standards just said you had to disclose beginning balance, additions, disposals, and what your ending balance is. It didn't tell you where to put them in your notes or anything like that. Statement number 104 brings it all together and says here's a specific guidance on where where and how you should disclose them. So really just creating more uniformity across the country for local governments to compare themselves to each other. The other piece with statement number 104 is it's now going to want local governments that are actively engaged in trying to um sell a capital assets to now disclose that if they're material to the financial statements. Um we do run into it occasionally where cities or counties, school districts, they might be um potentially relocating a building. So they actually said, "Okay, we want to actually sell this building or sell this piece of land that's included as capital assets." they now want you just to disclose that in the financial statements if they think the if you think the sale is imminent within the next 12 months. Um so really just cleaning up note disclosures. And then finally to statement number 105 related to subsequent events. That's actually December 31st of 27. That one really just provides um really the the city and us as auditors just more specific guidance as to what really classif is qualified as a subsequent event. It's going to add one very small note disclosure to your financial statements that basically says we evaluated potential events for subsequent event conclusion through a specific date. So very quick that standard is already um out there. So if you work with nonprofits or anything like that, you'll already see a very similar standard and statement in their notes already. It's just bringing that into the government world now. So with that, we're open to any other questions that the council may have. >> Anybody? >> Um a little bit more. Or this might be for Zach about the tax levy and the 105. So maybe it's for both of you. We don't we don't have to do that as long as we like say why we're not doing that. >> Yep. So um typically what we see is if you're not going to actually levy 105% of principal and interest. There's um and you actually did it for all but just one of your bonds that had a payment in there. It says why you're not levying 105% use of reserves or some other use of things like that. >> Okay. very common when you have um a lot of development where you had a lot of prepaid assessments up front. You got to use that fund balance down. You just can't levy for some of those types of things. So that's all it is is really cleaning that last piece up. Like I said, all but one bond was essentially included in that. >> Okay. Okay. So that's ultimately not a huge deal. Just a little >> Yeah. Mayor Council, it is related to the 2020 bond that has a lot of assessments on it. So we've got those assessments paid early and then obviously didn't use those dollars um on every other one I've wrote as noted above. However, on that one, I failed to write as noted above and that was your description. So, okay. I did review it for the cult meeting and said, "Oh, forgot to add as noted above." So, there you go. >> Pretty easy fix in things. Okay. Um and then yeah, I think you answered um everything else. I did oh I did have some questions I think were more for Zach um about on on page not page 62 of the packet online um which is I believe page 13 of whatever handout we got um about the the permits that we we pulled we had less permits than budgeted for and then but yet we paid more to Sante and West Metro and that didn't make sense to me and I'd asked Zach and I just wanted Zack Zach has answered but for anyone else who had the same question I had. >> Yep. Councelor Van as it was a great question to ask and um I appreciated it. So there's a delay in that process. So as we have building permits pulled there's obviously a delay in when those services are actually rendered. So as we had more permits pulled in 2024, services were actually provided in 2025 as those buildings came online and or developments came online. And as those come online, that's when those services are rendered versus when you actually pull the building permit. So they get pulled a permit in 2024, not actually any services in 2025. We then have those services on our books in 2025. So if we lose that same sort of scenario, it should be very similar between 2025 and 2026 because there was less permits pulled in 2025. So there should be a reduction or rough reduction. Um there's obviously increases in rates and whatnot from Stantech and Metro West and such, but that is why there is that delay there which is sometimes just missed overall in the process of understanding why those revenues and expenses don't line up exactly. So >> thank you for clarifying that. Um, and then I think everything else you kind of addressed is just we we're we don't have that much staff. So, um, let's see here. I think Oh, and this one was, um, technically addressed, but just not on the same page. Was that was why the public safety budget was over by 134,000. Um, that seemed kind of big to me. Um, and so, Zach, if you wanted to clarify. >> Um, yep. Council Vaness, the same reason why is just based on the fact that we had budgeted for dollars related to um how much services were used the previous year and then there was a increase of those based on when building the permits were pulled. So most of that has to do with Metro West and Stantex time related to development and there was some also some overtime within the police department and requirements on that department overall. Um overtime was over budget by I think like $40,000 if you include both overtime and the benefits related to those because retirement does follow when those are actually being worked. So um there is a percentage of the city pays for retirement as we use more resources with those overtimes. We actually pay more retirement funds towards it. So >> and I think I didn't realize that inspections were under public safety. So that was why like I was like what like that's why I think public safety is cops and firefighters. So um in my brain that's what public safety is, right? So I forgot that's why I was like what the heck how they weren't that far over budget but it was over budget. So, I appreciate that clarification because it is public safety. It just my brain wasn't thinking of it that way. >> Yep. Um, yeah, we changed that classification to public safety probably 3 or four years ago because it's actually a public safety item. If building inspections aren't done properly, >> the public technically isn't safe. It doesn't have anything to do with the general government overall operations of the city. So, >> yeah. So, I appreciate that clarity for myself. And again, if there was anyone else who had similar questions, I thought I would ask them. Thank you. >> Anybody else have anything? No. All right. Looks like we're good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, on to item I pay my claims. >> I've already asked all my questions. >> Hey, mayor members council. I stand for any questions you may have. >> If you want to ask them again, please do so. >> No, I'm good. >> Um, anybody else? >> Somebody else can ask. >> I I appreciate all the questions and um things that are answered so I can can get an answer back to you. It's not anticipated that I want to hide anything. Just want to make sure that everyone knows that whatever you're asking, ask it again because >> All right. Any moment uh motion and a second? >> I'll make a motion. >> Second or Scott. >> Any other questions? >> Mary, who are you giving that one to? Scott or Dave? >> Call for fashion or I deferred. >> Oh, you deferred. Okay. >> Sorry. Thank you. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. That carries from five to zero. And item J. >> Good evening, mayor and council. Um Oh, you're switch uh more water topics to discuss tonight. So, we are looking at sewer and water utility plans that were put together for the historic village area. So, just a little background on this. There's been an ongoing question, I would say, over the years on what development or redevelopment could be supported within the historic village uh area in the northwest part of town based on the infrastructure that's in place for those utilities. Um concerns being that the both the water and sewer are are limited uh to some capacity that would limit the ability to develop or redevelop in the area. A general investigation was completed in 2020. That was a very high level look um that that did I identify that there was very limited in water and also uh pretty limited in sewer capacity as well. Meaning that nothing meaningful could really be done other than maybe squeezing in a few services. I think we estimated maybe a hundred more services or so uh could be included or added to the system um before significant upgrades would be needed. uh there was a desire for a more definitive answer. Um there's some more specific questions that have come in over over the recent years on what can be done uh specifically. So we did take a closer look. Council authorized uh some additional effort on it. So the scope of it was to develop I'll say a master plan or a a utility system uh for sewer and water that could support development. So as a basis we use the adopted historic village framework plan uh that has been prepared for the area that just gives us the land use to give us a starting point on what the intensity might be and what the demand on these utilities might be to to go off of. So we inserted the existing system and then we ran scenarios with the buildout uh as identified in this framework plan to look at what components of the systems uh would be lacking and need to be upgraded to support this. So I'll just go through the general findings uh of this and a lot more I'll just say in in general more positive than we expected. So, it's it's good. A closer look was done. Um, some of the I should probably wait till sewer, but I'll just say some of the assumptions we made, especially on the sewer, uh, were more conservative than needed. So, um, actually, uh, pretty good, uh, favorable results in it. Um, I should have waited because the water is still pretty dismal. There's very limited water there. We're all aware of that. Um there's the two existing wells are sufficient for the supply um to these based on the framework plan. I will say that it is teetering on if full buildout occurs that an additional well might be needed. Um the other thing I'll add to that is by that time it may be that the system in the northeast where we're located may be connected to it and then it becomes a moot point. So, one of those two things will likely be needed um at full buildout, but it's it's uh it's looking good for the most part. Um and again, the the dismal part I joked about is uh it's due to storage. Um it's limited storage there. We know that um a tower project is underway. Um so, that should be addressed with that project. And then as far as the pipes themselves, um, as we've discussed as part of the Northwest Tower project that we mentioned that there would be an upsizing of a pipe along Shady View to increase the flows throughout that system for operations. And then we did identify a few locations where looping would be of of benefit. All looping is is basically taking the dead ends and extending them back into the system so the water better circulates. It in improves flows um helps with fire suppression and uh just makes the the system run better. Not dire that they get incorporated but u beneficial if they if they can be and then again any local improvements that would be needed for specific developments and those would just be monitored as as it progresses. So just graphically what that looks like the solid lines are existing pipes within the systeming system. The dashed line are those that would be added um labeled as the loops between as mentioned those deadend lines within the system. And then the vertical uh green dash line is the additional pipe between the wells in the proposed tower site. So on the sewer um and and we've known this part that the capacity for additional flows to at Seagull are available. I think we're way well well under um the capacity allotted to us. So treatment is not is not uh so much the concern. It's more the conveyance, the collection and conveyance throughout the system. And these turned out better than we thought. There's three existing systems uh within the area that that pump flows um in the places needed. U two of these would have to be upgraded uh with the buildout as proposed, but it's limited to just upsizing the pumps, which is good. That's about as cheap as you're going to get on those improvements. Um, if there is, and I'll show this graphically, if there's more intensity, for example, if there was uh just say a large apartment building or something um put in here, not represented necessarily by the plan, but if something like that was inserted, there may be some additional upgrades, but again, not as significant as we thought based on the preliminary results of the first look at this. And then the collection system um holds up pretty well. While there is one section of pipe we anticipate will have to be upsized at some point. Unfortunately, it's the one right in front of the bridge. So, it would require bridge C closure over the Crow River to replace it. Um, but it is limited to just that one segment. We anticipate and then there could be some force man. And I'll you'll see that on the next slide. >> Which main street does that go? >> It's just one line. So, it's just between um I forget the first street. Um it's the first street east of the the bridge. It's between the DNR lift station and the >> uh Robinson's that you talking about the first craft. >> Yeah, >> it's uh Yeah, just as Sorry, this was easier. >> So, that's it. >> Like a 50 ft give or >> um I think it's a little more than that, but it's not far. Yeah. >> Oh. Oh, yeah. >> It's just where everything ties together there. >> Okay. Like I know it's >> And that's kind of where a lot of it converges. So that's that takes you know up on levy and then it also takes slab town is pumped through a lift station back to the north between going in another lift station and going back to at seagull. So that's where all of the flows go. So that's why only that segment but um so this is just graphically the um as mentioned the one at the DNR lift station the pump would have to be replaced. Uh similarly uh the one on the opposite end if you will on River Road and then again if there was more intense development on here there would have to be some other additional upgrades just uh basically the force main along here and then uh uh there probably would have to be a bigger lift station constructed at the DNR which would be a more expensive project but um again that's only if the intensity um becomes quite a bit larger than it it is based on the framework plan. >> So can I ask you just to say that again? So the slab town sewage goes under the river >> to a lift station or lift station and then and then back cross. Okay. >> Y that right. >> No it it's a good question. Um the reason for it is because you can't add to the system as you're pumping it. So we had to get all the flows to a single system. So it was either build it at the DNR lift station with or B landing which is the lowest area easiest to get it to and pump it from there or get it all over to slap town which the ground's quite a bit higher. So it um it made sense to get it all to the low point. So that's how it was designed originally. >> Just feels silly. >> It it does because it crosses the same stuff if you will crosses under the river in two different pipes. But that that is how it comes together. So, our recommendation is just to have a council action to adopt these plans and that would just um give them some teeth, if you will, or or some use as guidance when looking at development or redevelopment in the area as a basis and then again construct the tower improvements uh with the Northwest Tower project currently underway and then add the water main loops u when appropriate if there's activity in the area and funding's available. Um, and then again, as far as the lift station upgrades, um, public works would just monitor flows and once they start getting to a level that we're becoming uncomfortable with, we'd look at upsizing those as needed. >> A question about how something like this could be used. If we approve this, right, and we have this on the books and a developer comes in or someone comes in and they want to do something that would then can we say a fine, but then you have to pay like this is how much? >> That's exactly right. >> Okay. >> Yes. So >> whether I mean whether the burden is put 100% on them or a percentage but that that's the starting point. Yes. The but for test these improvements are not needed but for your development. >> Therefore without your contribution your development would be premature. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yep. >> So I wanted to ask about the um the fireflow need the 1500 gallons a minute for >> 3 hours. So that's 270,000 gallons of water. And obviously the system that's there today was never designed to that. >> Right. Right. >> Were were the requirements different when that was put in? >> Again there those are all recommendations. So um >> you don't have to satisfy those. In fact there's different methodology for like the storage I mean there's general recommendations and practices for this. So um this question was brought up on the northwest tower for example. you know, three of the four, if I remember right, uh, computations done for the sizing of the tower were actually above what we recommended. So, they they are just kind of guidelines. Um, admittedly, I I guess I don't know the thought process with that project back in 2000 when that was constructed, but I my understanding is there was quite a bit of development proposed on the property that was previously owned by the Helmer property, knowing just south of here. And the thought was, let's get the distribution system in place and then when that development occurs, that's when we'll add another well and the storage. That's my understanding of it. And then that of course did not happen. So I think that system was put in place with expectations it would be upgraded to meet those recommendations, but it just didn't happen. >> I don't I don't know if that helps or not, but there >> Yeah. Well, the fact that they're guidelines that helps. I guess that >> Yeah. As far as I know, there's no >> decided to use them. Right. >> Yeah. And I can Well, it seems like around that time period, a lot of assumptions were made around growth that didn't occur, >> at least in that time. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I don't know a lot of the detail in the 2000, but my understanding it was driven by a lot of failing septics and contamination potentially to the river. >> That was huge. Yeah. >> There was a lot of houses downtown that had failed septics and no room, >> right? Yeah. They're very small lots >> without alternate sites. >> All right. Thank you. >> Sure. >> So to the fireflow though, um I had and might be misinformation, right? Just what people a lot of hearsay, right? that there are people who have been interested in say opening a coffee shop or something in the historic village and they have not been able to because they cannot put in the proper fire like for a business that they have requirements for fire suppression >> that just a regular house doesn't but now is that or is that not true >> that they're required >> that that is and Gary can probably fill me in a little bit on this but there is fire code for that for new construction. So there are requirements for that part of it. But just the public water supply >> requirements are are guidelines. My understanding of it is that you don't necessarily need to >> you don't need to provide that to allow public >> water or make public water available. But to construct a building that building would have to satisfy. In other words, they don't have to use the public system for their suppression. >> Oh god. >> Much like public works. Um there's been other locations. Dayton storage that was recently >> okay >> done. So they build a self-contained system with on the property to meet those needs >> but that is insanely expensive and then of course shuts down most like if if someone is going to start a small business >> you know >> of a coffee shop they're not going to have the cash >> systems are very expens they'll hit a half million very quick >> and they don't have that. So therefore they need us as the city to be able to Okay. Okay. that that that that explains why it's a requirement but not a requirement cuz I was like wait how is that possible? >> Sure. >> But are we saying that today that for a sprinkler system in a existing building I'll say um that needs to be added for a restaurant or small coffee shop like that that we don't have the supply capability to supply. they'll be responsible to test the when developers come in, they'll go out and perform flow tests and I I'll use the example of the cubes at that time and probably going into more detail than you you asked for, but um Maple Grove flows to Dayton were not full they didn't fully meet the fire flow um requirements for a building such as that. They have since completed additional improvements that have increased that. But when that building was constructed, they were short of the needed system. So, their system actually uses city water and supplements with a self-contained system. So, if you go on the south side of their property, you'll see a big storage container across the parking lot. So, they they accomplished it that way. So I don't I don't know if that helps but um >> so it depends on the needs I guess like a smaller system is yes it would be sufficient in almost every circumstance um short of the village >> um but for a larger system that's very robust it might still fall short and then they'd be responsible to get a system that would accommodate >> okay thank you >> right I need a motion second >> I'll make a motion to approve Scott, >> I'll second. >> Sarah, any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> All those opposed say no. Carries 5 to zero. And on to item K. So similar on a much larger scale. These are citywide um updates. Um so just generally speaking, these are just so there's not confusion. We call them the comprehensive utility plans. Um, not to be confused with the overall citywide comprehensive plan required by Met Council. These are components of that overall plan, but they're like individual chapters, if you will. So, the the intent of them is to identify the system needed. Again, just like the previous item, identify the system needed to service the desired area. In this case, it's the entire city. So it provides the the framework for implementation of the infrastructure u through both development they deliver and then the city projects as well. And it is recommended that these be updated um as necessary. I would say at a minimum with the overall city comp plan. So on a 10-year basis, but also if there's any changes to the comp plan, it's helpful to at least review these so that they can be used for development as guidance to get to where we want to get. So they should be they should be kept in in line with upgrades to the overall city comp plan. That being said, we've been using plans from 2005 and 2007 for these two utilities uh until this point. Um council did authorize this work. It was actually a few years ago there was a number of things that came up including transportation plans, changes in the in the comp plan, um small area plans, master plans, things that changed these. So we tried to hold until things were changing less so we could stop and and develop a plan that made sense. Um so long story short uh long period of time but we are now completed with the effort and have a have the framework in plan for this. So just to note when the overall city comp plan is updated these these plans will need to be tweaked before they're inserted into it. But again uh they're substantially I mean they're ready to go. The whole framework is there. It's just updating to match the the land use plan. is that the the reason I noticed with the the sewer plan that we're looking at now, the 2040 Met Council water resources policy plan was used, not the 2050 um version of that that was used in the water plan. I that you you'll do next, but in this one, it's referencing the 2040 version of that. Um, >> and I'm just wondering why >> I I I will have to look at that >> because I would think well we know that the 2040 MED council stuff the population estimates and growth were way off >> and these will so when the well and the information is out now and it might be just the timing of when we completed these sections um and on and if those system statements were available from my council for the 2050. So, we might have been using the 2040 to set the framework. That that might be I'd have to dig in a little more. Um, but both of these will have to be updated using the system statements for the 2050 comp plan, which will be this next round. >> Looked like the water plan was to >> maybe it was already using them because maybe the information was available. Yeah, because there's and I understand what you're saying because in the little bit that I looked at it, there's new requirements in the in imagine 2050 version of this thing that that aren't addressed here and I wouldn't expect them to be. So those will be the things that have to be added after. >> Those will be right >> go to the count plan, but it seems like we're having to come from farther back if we're coming from the 20 24. Um, it it could be and it might be that we had that plan farther along prior to the system statements being released, which is not that long ago. So, it might be that we just didn't update it before this point, which which we could do that um if if decided um or if desired, we could do that or just do a single revision. >> I think at this point it only makes sense to do it, you know, in tandem with the comp plan development. Yeah. And the land use affects the land use affects these greatly. I mean they're small changes but it it changes all of the calculations. So the land use is the important part before finalizing these. So um yeah I would recommend that once that that plan at least is set in stone to the best it can be is when we perform the last update to these. So the yeah the sewer plan in 2025 again it's it's very similar information. I mean just how this is set up. Uh the biggest thing is we add all the existing information. If you notice the previous comp plan does not have anything existing because this was put in place before anything was built. And this revision has uh as you can see in the the green lines in the in the three areas where development has occurred or mostly the two areas north and south. And then just to note that something that was added to the to this update was the city did receive a grant to build a sewer system a septic inventory. So we did uh collect all of the information create a GIS module ma uh module that helps just to track and uh improve recordkeeping for the the sewer or the septics throughout the city. And just to note there's about 845 of them. So each of those red dots um is a documented known septic system in the city. >> Is there any idea about how many undocumented ones there are? >> We don't know. >> Okay. I mean I they're undocumented, but like from other cities or other >> just from records, it looked pretty pretty thorough. I mean, we didn't we didn't see any areas that look suspicious, but >> Okay. >> There there could be some out there. >> Yeah. >> But >> but you don't think we missed like half? like there's maybe a handful that >> I mean I suspect there could be but I yeah I I think they're they're mostly accounted for potentially all >> and then similarly the water and again this update looks uh very similar because it's a lot of the same information some of the configuration changes and again the existing information put in there which allows us to better model the system we're working from and then update the future needs in it. So again, the three areas um of the city that have the distribution pipes in it were put into the system and then again the modeling was completed to identify the wells, the towers um the additional distribution pipes for it. And then I just noted um the overall system citywide um we'll need 18 to 20 wells is the the calculated amount. There's five existing which means we have 13 to 15 left and again towers uh we need six we have one so we'll be looking at about five one of those to be completed soon. So uh similar to again the last item the direction or the recommendation would be to adopt these plans so they can be used when looking at development redevelopment in the area as a basis and then also to use the information to inform the capital improvement project as that's developed. Um similar to the work session tonight um that information all came from this. So this report that was done for the water. So that allows us to assign tenative years for the improvements and assign costs to them and and u inform that uh the CIP and then again just recommend that updates are completed. I would say no less than when the overall plan is done um and ideally um when any amendments are done to the the plan itself that this is at least reviewed and then adjusted accordingly. >> I have two questions. Well, one is not even a question. It's just a minor thing. I caught a minor typo on page 389 of the packet, which was page 28 of the water comprehensive plan. Um, there is an error reference source not found. I think it was like it's just a silly typo. Um, but before it's official official, we should probably fix that. >> Okay. >> We'll go through that. That sounds like a program error. >> That's what I'm guessing. I'm guessing it pulled from data somewhere else and it just didn't >> Somebody moved the file that was linked in it. Yeah. Um, and again, not a huge deal. Just wanted you to be aware of that. Um, second thing was just a question that just now occurred to me looking at the big map. >> Obviously, Elm Creek Park Reserve is mostly a park, but they have water and sewage needs. Are they all just on their own wells and own septic and they have no interest or desire to ever tap into any of our stuff? Do we talk to them at all or we like wash our hands of them? They're their problem. >> That's a good question. I I don't know. So, they have the nature center, uh, Eastman off of, I don't know if you know, John, off of a >> It'd be quite a distance to bring in. >> Yeah. >> I'm just I wasn't sure if they had any plans for any trail heads or anything where they would want a bathroom and would perhaps want to hook up to our >> the I mean, the facilities up on the north, I know. I mean, they just have the pit um restrooms. They don't have water or sewer there. Um, I don't know. I don't know in the nature center and I don't know in the other I'm assuming the other area is probably serviced by Maple Grove, but I don't know that. >> Okay. I was just curious if ever if we've ever even talked about >> No, they've never raised the question and to be honest, I've never thought about it. >> I I didn't think about it till I just saw cuz it's all bright green and it's empty and I was like, >> "Huh, I wonder if they >> have any thoughts or plans." Okay. >> Um I'm not if they're not worried about it, I'm not worried about it. I was just curious if that's ever been anything discussed. So clearly not that I'm aware of. >> So those are it. Those are my only questions. >> I had one um comment in the appendixes for these plans. We've got our various water agreements >> with the um Maple Grove and Atigo and well for sewer and Rogers for water and some sewer. The Rogers agreement appears to have expired in December of 25. Um, I'm wondering if we have >> um something that has extended that or >> I can look. I think we're on the fourth amendment to the Rogers. >> Yeah, I looked at the amendments and I didn't see anything that addressed the the termination date. >> Okay. >> So, >> I I don't know the answer to that. >> They haven't shut anything off, so I guess we're okay. But, >> um, yeah, because we do have agreement. We we've added areas over the years, and I know there's been amendments. Um, yeah. >> Yeah. And maybe I just missed it, but I didn't see anything that talked about the termination date >> beyond the December 25th original. >> Okay. >> One. >> Yeah. Well, we'll have to look as well. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> All right. Need a motion. Second. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> Carries. 5 to zero on the item L. >> Okay, last water project for tonight. So, this is back to the northwest water tower again proposed in the historic village area. Um, this was brought to council. This should be very familiar. Uh, just at the last meeting to give an update on it. U, what we're considering tonight is authorizing final design. So, um, again, quick background. This is the historic village in the far northwest part of the city uh that currently has very limited I'll almost say u absent uh storage for for the area. So it is a city system. It's very low use. Um has two wells and very limited storage as mentioned. And the concerns is the lack of uh supply and storage for fire flows primarily but also just for reliable operations during downtime or other service periods that might be needed just because of the lack of um reserves for distribution. So elevated storage a tower has been proposed for a solution to the lack of storage. Uh council did authorize the preliminary design um later last year to choose the preferred site um to determine the the size of the tower that would be needed um the style and then the um identify what land rights would be needed and then estimate costs for the project. Um that is now complete. It was actually shared at the previous meeting um prior to um asking for final design just to get feedback if anything needed to to change direction um prior to moving forward. So, as shared, we landed on a 250,000galon tank uh spheroid uh style as shown in the photos, uh being the most economical for that uh size and and uh configuration of tank needed. Uh we did identify McNeel Park as the location for this. It' be basically at the at or near the intersection of uh Columbus Street and uh Shady View Lane. Um as shown, it's uh just for reference. You can see it's uh I'll say behind the third third baseline or third baseline dugout. Uh what was brought up at the meeting uh that there was some concern about the potential skyline impacts at the last meeting. I think probably driven by uh competition if you will between the tower and the the steeple on the church which it's kind of up on a hill and and uh I'll say has a significant prominence within the skyline. So an effort to help with this um we did do some you know generic elevation views. So I I do have a handful of these just to kind of get a sense of what that would look like in comparison. Um I should have had a plan view. I guess you can see it on the left a little bit. So as labeled where we're proposing is the McNeel Park which is labeled and then the other one is near Wellhouse one. It's actually right next to Wellhouse one um down on the south end. So we just put them both in there for the comparison. So if you can see on the left, it's where the view is taken from and then the arrow is the general direction. Um, of course, so this one would be about where Robinson meets River Road, I guess it would be, or that 30 mph curve where it does the 90. Um, that's the what could be viewed. And then and I can stop on these if you want to look more at any of them, but I'll just kind of go through them. U, this one, I'll just say, is generally on the roof of the activity center. U maybe some distance above the the roof. It's up about 50 feet in the air on this one. What it would look like. You'd see the top of it from McNeel. Uh the meal McNeel Park location. Um another one near the junction of County Roads 12 and 13 Brockton Lane and River Road. I think that's Mckelpine. Um well, uh the building there. uh same or similar position but looking south for the one near the wellhouse one. And then this one is actually on Shady View. So on I'll just call it the back road looking north, but that would appear. Um I do have and if if you're comfortable with those views, I won't attempt it, but I attempted to set up a link so I could give you a live one if you wanted any different views. I can navigate it. But um or if you just want to watch me struggle with tech do that, too. >> My issue with some of those was the the elevation wasn't what people would see, >> right? >> And and the the real the the view I was really concerned about is as you come into town from the west side, you cross over the hill and I'd see go, >> that's when you see Dayton. >> Mhm. And that view was kind of what I was concerned about. >> So I did a lot of street view looks and I can bring it up. The downside is on that view we don't have the tower inserted. So u but I know exactly what you're talking about. So when you're you're coming in um west of the crow you're coming in on what is that third or by 39 kind of. Yeah. >> I think that is >> yeah when you come in that's when you see the church steeple um from the from the ground. I mean, anywhere else you're low enough and there's enough trees that you're probably not going to see anything. >> Yeah. From some of those views, I don't think you'd see either tower, but >> No, I I would agree. And just I guess for reference, I just had these for my notes. Um >> the number in the bottom right corner is the elevation. That's how high off the ground these are taken, >> right? >> So, yeah, this this one even is 40t up. This one is one's only 18 and 15, but again, this one's 50t in the air. This one's 85 ft in the air. So yeah, you're not going to be that high. You're not going to see over the trees. >> Yeah, that one you're not going to see really. The only one I was concerned about is as you come into city, you suddenly get presented with Dayton and there's the church and that that's the view that I was concerned about. >> Well, I can, but the tower is not in there. >> I I mean, >> you see from you can't see from street view, but you can see like it's close. Um, so if you hit escape on there, I think I already pulled up. >> And then go to Yeah. >> Okay. Live. >> Okay. It's loaded. Yeah. So there's >> So there's the tower there. >> There's the tower. And I'll just kind of get to where you're talking. >> Talking about right there. >> Right there. Yep. >> I've been practicing, but I'm still going to be pretty terrible at this, I expect. Um, >> well, seems like you're doing pretty well. so far. Sometimes I get stuck below the trees and I can't get out. But >> you do get stuck in the trees. I was playing around the earlier. It's really easy. >> This is really cool. >> Oh, shoot. Yeah. >> Go back up just here. >> Um, so there there is I mean I think this is the view you're talking about. So that's you can see the steeple. >> Can you scroll? >> I have to >> I have to get all the way out of there. >> So I was able to scroll down and then like stop yourself >> back. >> Yeah. So there you can kind of see where it's going to be at with respect to the church. roll up. Roll up. >> Well, so >> anyways, I I think the other concern I had too was I I'd still like to see the numbers because I >> it still sounded like buy the well by well one is actually and the other well it's actually cheaper. >> It it it could and we went through this a little bit more. Um we did the >> I can see it there. Yeah. the additional height um the the additional height might actually be a little bit less. We had we had initial concerns that it might >> ft >> be uh what's that? >> 25 ft difference or something like that. >> Yeah, we we had Yeah, we were thinking it was between 26 28 somewhere in there. But yeah, regardless um but yeah, and I I had used the 15,000 per foot and I that seemed to be more consistent with a a composite structure like the one here. So, it's actually a little bit less than >> probably 10 or so. >> Yeah, I think it it came out to about I want to say like 250 to 300,000. >> About the number I got. Yeah. About 300k. >> Um, so and and that most likely would eliminate the 12-in pipe >> or you you could probably get by without it. The system will operate better. I just told from our people the it's more reliable on your P pressure distribution. I think I had mentioned um is improved with it centralized, but there is thought that on this small of an area potentially it will >> well be sufficient. >> It can't be as that big a deal because the current system we have the tower is as far to one side of the system as it gets. >> Well, it's where the pressure tank is. So, yes. No, you're right. It's not big enough for it to be a real concern. It would just be an improvement there. Um, some other things just to note with it and not that this has to be the determining factor by any means. U, but the city does not have land rights down there. So, there'd have to be an acquisition or a conveyance of the land. And then we have not tested the site, but I I mean, I would I've seen the soils there. I think they'd be fine. So, I mean, we'd have to verify that. >> When I looked at the numbers, it's it'd save us about 500k. However, >> potentially, >> you got to buy the land. >> Mhm. >> Which might be 500k. >> Oh, I doubt it. um just because he's probably got an incentive. So, I don't know. >> But to add to that, um I >> it doesn't feel like one or the other in terms of needing some additional land because when we get to the well head treatment piece of it, >> isn't that where it goes? >> Actually, that that part's already been Yes, that part has already been coordinated and will be dedicated with the plat that's being considered down there. So that okay that's the area west of the I I don't think there's room to get a tower. We could look at it. I don't think there's a room to get a tower in there. I'm pretty confident there's not room for a tower and a treatment. We could evaluate it and and see. Um I don't know if I have >> How much land did we get with the other >> uh we basically just uh >> just enough to run the well. >> I don't know if any of these will show. It just seems like it'd be nice to get numbers on that >> and we Yeah, I don't have anything zoomed in. Um, my presentation is >> you at the beginning. >> Scroll it. >> See, you get to see my tech skills regardless. >> Um, >> click on the bottom right. That's the one I was looking for the first time and I didn't see it. All right. Um, so basically Wellhouse one, I know it's hard to see. It's very small. Wellhouse one is right here. So this south line of Wellhouse one is extended straight across to Brockton and that area to the north uh will be dedicated to the city. Uh there is a wetland that goes on there including some buffer. So a lot of that space is kind of used up if you will. >> Yeah. >> Uh we don't need a lot of area for the treatment plant. So, I mean, we could look at potentially squeezing them both on there. I'm >> Well, >> I'm a little doubtful there's room, but we could look at it. >> The other pump. What's the elevation at that guy? >> The >> pump three or what's it called? >> Well, three. >> Yeah. >> On Dayton River Road. >> That's on D Road. The one on >> the one to the south. >> Yep. >> Right there. Yeah. >> Yeah. We'd have to extend a water mane to that one. >> Oh, okay. >> That's a raw water line. So the water does it just pumps from well three and goes along river road and then along the south side. >> So we need we'd need >> which we could do. Um it would require more land rights and we'd have to put an additional pipe between the two because right now that water is untreated in the pipe. So there is a pipe connecting but it's raw water straight out of the ground to wellhouse one where it is then treated and sent to the distribution system. So we'd need a clean water line if you will or a potable water line. Could be another option. And I just that will certainly add more cost to it. But >> is your hang up the cost or is your hang up the site lane? >> Both. >> Okay, >> cool. >> I mean, >> and even without the sight lane, it's cheaper. >> It's cheaper. Yeah, >> it's cheaper. >> Half a million bucks is >> plus it is kind of a goddy thing to put into the middle of a development. But >> as we've heard over and over, >> I mean, we we can I mean, we're in frequent communications with the property owner. because they have a current application through um I mean we can at least breach the topic. Um I don't think waiting another council meeting is going to >> jeopardize um >> anything. I mean we do have funding for it but it's not like we're down to the week for it. So >> well I would like to wait. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm in the same place. I'm more I guess as concerned about the sighteline as I am about the the difference in cost, but it it seems like there's u it may not be that much one way or the other. >> Sure, >> more expensive or cheaper, but I would I would feel better about it. I mean, nobody wants a water tower in their backyard and you can't hide them, you know, but I think this is that wellhouse location makes more sense to me. Okay, we'll we'll evaluate the things without spending real money, if you will. Um, and then and then we'll see what options we come with and maybe we can get it on the west side. I think it we'll we'll look at it and then if it looks viable, we'll um we'll we'll look for authorization to get soil borings and further test the site to make sure they're viable. But um yeah, we can bring that back next meeting. >> How much are soil borings? >> Um do you remember what we paid? I want to say it was about 20,000. >> Yeah, I thought it was about 20,00 >> 17 or 20,000 I want to say for these. >> Well, because if the main hangup is cost, I don't want to eat all that cost up and just checking >> and then discovering it's not actually cheaper. So now we've wasted $30,000 to explore a site that isn't actually going to work. >> You wouldn't do them. No, you just do an analysis and come back. >> Again, if if there's not willing land rights, the conversation's short. There's Well, we wouldn't even get permission to go to get the boarding. >> Okay. Well, then you'd be done. Yeah. Okay. >> So, yeah, we'll just do the high level stuff and if if any if anything looks promising, we'll absolutely come back and then we can talk about additional costs needed. I guess as a >> this is a a smaller concern, but it's still a concern I have about the the McNeel Park location is we're going to use up some of that park and it's >> it's the ball field takes most of it right now, but and the I mean the way you've got it cited, it it's sort of open >> land there, but it's still going to need a fence around it and some other stuff. And that's it's kind of the only playground sized park for that old old village area that >> Sure. >> So I have a little bit of concern about how what we're doing there as well. >> Sure. Sure. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Let's we'll take a look at alternatives and >> the discussed official action for a table if that's the direction of the council. >> I'll make a motion to table. >> I'll second. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those oppos say no. All right. Table it. Five to zero. Um M item M. Mayor M council. Um communication policies in front of you or provided the council packet. Um essentially there was the request for action is discussion around the new communication policy that's in front of you and request for approval. Um this was reviewed by legal prior to the meeting. Um this is stem from a conversation. I don't remember what exact meeting but it was related to AI and the use of AI. Um as review of an AI type policy. It was realized that we probably should have a greater policy on just communications overall since we continue to move towards more written communications and it's important that we have policies around all of it. And so um as the use of social media has also increased, it's also good to have general ideas of what that looks like in communications in total. Um as we have had more um interactions with people online, they are expecting us to respond which we don't have staff time or availability to do. Um and we try to again either it's either all or nothing a little bit. So we try to limit that and want to have that in policy as well that we don't respond to those messages and or comments on Facebook. and or other social media platforms, but I'm open for any questions, comments, concerns, and then go from there. >> I have a Oh, do I have a first? >> I have several, but you can go. >> Oh, I just I just have one. Um, but it's kind of a a large one. Um, we currently have a social media policy slash >> communications policy kind of in a way that we don't enforce now. Um, so I guess I'm just wondering what makes this different than what we currently have as far as like how we are going to use this tool. >> Sure. Council Council member Henderson, the uh question is valid and the comment is valid. Um, I would say this is a more legal document because there is an actual acknowledgement signature page that would be signed by every employee that says that they have read this policy similar to what our personal policy has. Social media policy that we have currently does not have that. And so it is expected that you read it, but there's no actual acknowledgement. That's my legal understanding of it from my conversation with the attorney. Um, but not to say that you're not incorrect on that aspect of things. I'm just explaining what my understanding is of this legal side of things. >> So, this would have more teeth than our current one does. >> Correct. >> I mean, maybe. I don't know. I I guess I just maybe I have like a fundamental issue with this idea of putting something like this in place to maybe I'll just say the thing. It feels more like a tool for us to put into our toolbox to then use. that's very um broad and open for interpretation. And so for me um I know that I've had I want to say runins but I've been on the other side of like hey like is this how we should be conducting ourselves? is this how we should be presenting as a city employee or as a representative yada yada yada and then um it is not in for the one we have now is not enforced and I understand now we have like a sign on the line um but again like the way it's written feels very much like a tool to add into our toolbox to selectively use when we want to enforce it much like what we have now so I disagree that making someone acknowledge it is going to make it either more enforceable uniformly enforced or not a tool to use at our discretion. So I think that's my issues. >> You think it's can be weaponized >> the way it's written? Yes. >> Okay. >> Is there specific passages or specific parts that you >> Let me >> I mean maybe if you want to glance to that I can maybe ask my questions. >> Absolutely. >> Um so my first thing was about the communication specific apparel. Um, and you and I had chatted about that or emailed about that. Um, it says to maintain a clear boundary between city work and outside projects, staff may not wear city gear or name badges when appearing in non- city videos. But it doesn't really talk about attending events when you are there as a representative of the city. So, for example, tomorrow I'm going to the watershed meeting. I'm going as the representative of Dayton. I had planned to wear my city of Dayton shirt because that's why I'm there. is that do we consider I I would consider that appropriate. Um and it doesn't necessarily say I can't, but this only calls out that video. I don't know if they're going to be videoing it or not, but um I just I think maybe we need something in there, but like if you're going to an event as a representative of the city, you should be allowed to wear city apparel and they may or may not be filming at that event. Like, you know, I went to the League of Minnesota, you know, if we go to League of Minnesota events, they often take photographs there and we're there representing the city. I think anytime we've gone I wear I wear my shirt because that's why I'm there, right? Um so something I would I'd want to see something along those lines either clearing I don't know it just was fuzzy to me there about when it is or is not appropriate and whether or not it needs to be that specific. um called out about apparel. And then uh there was a part in the social media that was in how um employees engage in social media that I thought should be added to the disclaimer and I had the page written down and then of course I lost the page. Um where was it? Um okay so there's elected and appointed officials and there's employee use right there's two separate ones in the employee one there is a line um about if you're writing on uh there should be where is that quote basically these are my own opinions and not the opinions of the city right like that's called out for employees but that's not called out for elected officials and I think we we are automatically speaking for the city at anytime when we're posting, but we can't we shouldn't have to clarify that we are only speaking for ourselves and we're not speaking as an official statement for the city or the council. >> It'd be nice to have the attorney here, but these really don't apply to elected officials. >> Okay. Then that whole part should be taken out I think about >> well it could still give a sense of what is intended or what but yeah it's not I mean one of the so let's say you violate it >> yeah no >> can we be impeached is that an option >> oh there it is if you publish something related to city business and there is likely to be confusion whether you speaking on behalf of the city it would be best to edify yourself and use a disclaimer such as these are my own opinions and do not represent those of the city of Dayton >> and and yes, that's their their opinion is that it would be best. Yes, it's not a it's not a I mean it really depends on you you start getting into more politics when you start to dig into this because if I get on Facebook, which I very rarely do, um, and say water's wet, do I have to say >> that's my own opinion? >> This is my own opinion. Um, no I don't. Uh, should I if it has something to do with the city then then maybe it would it might be a good idea to but um >> but where's that line drawn? Like if I post something that's like I don't want to call anybody out. Uh if I do something very broad, right? right? So you post something that's leadership based it that this as written would give someone oh that was directed towards somebody because you said something in this meeting so it's got to be about this person and I think that that's where the line gets really blurry and muddy and I give that example because those are real world examples that have happened and so it's like oh if somebody is posting something again like social media is your own personal whatever you want to post inspirational stuff you post cat videos. You do you. But I think at a certain point there's like up for interpretation of what draws back to you being an official or you being an employee and what doesn't. And so I guess again like I'm not against having some sort of communication like on the same page like there are certain avenues that you should go through to post official city things. Um, but I don't know how you regulate social media or who draws that line and whose interpretation of that where that lies. So I mean >> so as a member of employment these things can be enforced. Um, but we're not employees. >> Correct. Sure. >> But also I guess again like even if you are an employee and you post some leadership quote or some this and this and that like does that automatically mean that it's about your boss? No. Does it automatically mean that it's about us? No. Does it automatically mean anything? No. Like it's just it's a post and I think that >> if we want to find something the way this is written, I think it allows us to >> or not us. It allows the city to draw that parallel and then use that as a weapon or a tool. >> I I know our the same with our current policy >> our company the the policy basically says if trash company expect to be fired. >> I mean everybody should expect that like don't be an idiot. Like and I mean that like with most respect possible but like don't be stupid. Um >> you're still a professional. We should all be professionals. Um >> so I don't know. Do you need all of that spelled out? I don't know. Um, >> well, also again, we have a a history of selective enforcement. And so for me, again, it's kind of like unless it's going to be every single time uniformly enforced. We are following everybody's social media and watching everything that they do and everything that they say, everything that they post. Like, I don't know how you do this without it spiraling really quickly. I do want to push back a little bit because this argument's come up in any number of contexts about how if we can't punish or basically yeah if we can't punish everybody every time we shouldn't bother to have rules and >> I don't think that's what I'm saying. I think that's the extreme of what I'm saying. >> I think that's the extreme but like it's come up a couple times with some of the ordinance things, right? Like well we can't enforce this ordinance 100%. So therefore, like what happens to the people where this ordinance is enforced and this person's not? >> I don't think that it's that somebody is I don't think it's that you need to drive around and find every person, but if somebody complains about it or brings it forward, they should all be treated the same. That's what I'm saying. So not as extreme as we should go drive around and find everybody who's got grass longer than four or three inches. Like that's not what I'm saying. I am not in favor of writing policies that we can weaponize against our employees or against other people. And that's what I I read this three four times and that's what I see in there. And I don't know that you're going to change my mind, but that's me. >> So, sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I just wanted to clarify that it's not an all. It's not meant to be an all or a nothing, but if you have the same complaint or like and same, I think that the interpretation there of who gets to decide what is and what isn't, then maybe that's my my concern. Also, I'm not sure how we determined this board of It's not a board, it's the committee. >> Yeah. >> How did you determine that? Can I ask >> Council Anderson? It had to do with who's available and who has bandwidth at all to do any of this stuff. And then we tried to separate it out by different departments as well so that they had um some you know some um variation across city. There's one person from the police department. There's one person from the public works department. And then there happens to be two people from city hall that would be able to be on the communications team. And those are the people that are going to be really doing all of the communications out for the city. that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be the ones that are enforcing this policy as um it is just more the ones who's going to be doing that communications outside of the city as in on behalf of the city and then it would be all of those communications would have to be either run through me at some point or some capacity so I have an idea of what's going on if they're recurring ones obviously those would be just posted automatically but like council meeting updates and whatnot those are just going to be posted because those areformational purposes But it's some sort of official communication or something that it's going to be back through the correct channels that need to go through them. Whether that's the police chief, the fire chief, myself, um public works director, may have you. >> Stephanie, is your only real issue the um stuff about social media? >> Um I think I'm fine with like the other official because all that's going to go through the same channels it does now. I think my I guess concern is that we currently have a social media policy and this is not materially different than what we currently have and we don't enforce that nor can we enforce that and so I think it's how do you enforce that and is it just you signed it you acknowledged it but >> I guess >> you've also sent it out and acknowledged that it was sent out and it doesn't change anything. I guess what I'm asking is if that whole social media part was out of there, is there anything else in here that bothers you or that's that you feel is could be weaponized or anything else? If it's because if it's just that we can just pull that out, approve what's here and maybe come back to that conversation >> cuz everything else in my mind is about >> who who uniform. >> Yeah. like this is what goes on the app and this is the kind of information that goes on the app and this is the kind of information that should go on a website and if you want to post something on the website these are the people you check with to make sure that the brand is used correctly. So the only issue is the social media part could we just pull that out for now? absolutely >> approve the rest of this and then maybe have a conversation about what is and is not like does this belong here or does this or does the social media part actually belong in the personnel policy and or what like the one that we already have and that's really where because that's about enforcement you know what I mean like >> yeah agreed yes >> so um because to me there's kind of two aspects to the social media there's how the city uses social media >> and then how employees use social media >> correct >> and the city I To Zach's point, I think maybe and correct me if I am misunderstanding this is we want to clarify that the city uses social media to put things out. The city as the city is not going to engage in in monitoring the comment section and having a back and forth. Exactly. And so that is what I think in my mind was the spirit behind this is just kind of clarifying don't expect the city to communicate with you via Facebook. If you want to talk to the city, this is how you talk to the city. These are the channels to do that. Um and are you okay with like that part I'm that part I was down with. And so if it's just how an employee uses social media and we want to take that out because it doesn't belong here, I'm like I would be fine with that. I think we're >> Does that feel like we could move forward with that for now and then? >> Okay. >> Yep. Yeah. So, mayor council is trying to combine obviously both policies so we don't have two different policies that we're reviewing which makes it a little easier but again this is just to try to get a spirit of what we're going to be communicating with how we're going to be communicating with the public and was and again after legal review was okay do you want to add this here? Sure. I guess it ties a little bit and ties I mean again yeah >> it's up to the council if you'd like to remove it. Well, and then I mean and maybe then it's just the taking out the um >> it sounds like it's just the employee use of social media section. >> Well, just the elected and appointed officials and the employee use of social media. Just take both of those parts out and just talk about how the city officially is going to use social media. >> So, if I you know, so mayor and council, if I took out the elected appointed officials, I do not know what page it is on your >> It's on page 451. >> Okay, there you go. Elected and appointed officials and then the employee use of social media which flows into the next couple of pages there. looks like until the communications policy review. >> Um, >> and just take those out. >> That's what you're looking at. I just want to make sure I'm >> um would that is does is does that make things better for people who are having concerns? Does that address the concerns? I think related to that I still find the >> you brought it up earlier Sarah the communication specific apparel I find >> to be pretty confusing how that >> is worded kind of >> is applied and just to give an example so >> uh as a council member I go to the Dayton Heritage Day and I'm wearing my Dayton t-shirt or something that identifies me and Those kinds of things I like to do because a lot of people don't know who we are and you want to have the opportunity to have those conversations with people and you know just kind of in the street see what people are thinking. Um I don't know whose video I'm in. Probably several and so it you know well that feels like or appears to be a violation the way this is written but I don't think I don't think it's meant to be. I see what you're saying because it's not a city event or a meeting. >> Yeah. >> Right. Got it. >> Even the meet I guess I have to go back and look, but I thought even the meeting part >> it's on page 440 if you're looking for it. >> Oh, okay. >> It seemed like uh let me read it again. >> Mayor Council, I did not write this portion of it. was more the attorney, but I believe the reason for the maintaining clear boundary is so that we don't say that we are endorsing a local brand or a local company. I think that's the intent of it. I don't know exactly why it was added, but again that I believe that's what the intent was is to say that we're not going to >> endorse because we have the city of Dayton logo when we're done with Comfort Matters or something like that. Um, but I believe that was the intent of the comment. But again, I can I'm happy to add city related functions or something like that instead of city events. That way, because it, you know, Dean Heritage Day is a function within the community. It may not be a city event, but it is a function within the community. No different than the car shows um or any other public event um bunts, backyards, or anything else that may be going on in the community. viously you know you're um they know who you are when you go there as a instead of just a another person. >> Yeah. And if you look at it kind of from the flip side of that, you know, I at least in my own head, I want to be identified so people don't feel like I'm, you know, kind of doing some kind of undercover thing and not identifying myself as who I am when I'm asking questions of people that I just get into conversation with. Or if you go to family fun night and you don't have kids, you don't want to look like a creeper. Like why is this random adult person without a child hanging out here at this child related event? You're like, "Oh, because I'm on city council and I wanted to talk to people." Um, >> so Mayor C, if we would have changed city events to just city related functions. Does that read better? Is that I mean trying to come up with other options here on the fly. >> Yeah. >> City related functions andor events or meetings. Yeah. >> Well, it's the same like at >> if the intent is to not have us, >> you know, endorsing products or services. >> Yeah. >> Then then say that >> say that. Just say that. >> I have a question. >> He did say that. Then the second paragraph. The first paragraph. The first sentence is the confusing one. >> It's it's a whole paragraph to basically say don't be endorsing. Uh >> well, I I have a question to like and this is more towards like Gary. Um, but when you get on the fire department, I swear to God, everybody only owns like three shirts and they're all the city of, you know what I'm talking about? They're all the city of Did A Dayton Fire Department, the blue ones with the logo on the back? Like they live in those shirts and you swear to God that no one owns another shirt. Um, are you saying here that like >> they can't wear those anywhere else? >> To the grocery store? Yeah, I guess that's my question cuz like not that it's the end of the world, but I'm just thinking like from my experience like that's Oh, wait. Where? >> Go ahead, >> Council Member Henderson. I I guess from that perspective, so we've come up with specific to the fire department. We have a uniform. So, anything that's related to this patch that resembles it or it says the Dayton Fire Department, you will. Now, with that being said, the relief association in the past has had something that says Dayton Fire as well. So, >> yeah, >> what I'm looking for is specific to like the uniform that we have um given out to the department. Now, you still could have the other article of clothing, if you will, as it relates to Dayton fire, but it's not >> official >> issued or official, if that makes sense. I don't know if that helps or hinders discussion, I guess. >> I But is your is your t-shirt then an official? >> It is. >> Okay. >> We do keep that as the official now. Like I know they recently did in the last year another sweatshirt or they have I have a sweatshirt frankly that says date and fire on the back >> but it's not the official uniform. So I guess that's the better term is the official. >> That's not what this says either though. >> No, that's where I think >> just says wear city branded clothes. >> Yeah, >> right. But that would be city branded. >> Correct. Sorry, I got it. >> Can't think of all situations when you write these policies. >> Yeah, >> that's why they're reviewed by multiple people. We have different perspectives and think of things and like, well, what about this situation? Well, what about that situation? >> Um, cuz I think like the goal is it should not appear that someone from the city is endorsing a company or, you know, like a a specific thing cuz we're not. And so, you don't want to do that. But we also want to be able to identify ourselves when we're out and about in public just doing our thing, right? Um, and like I'm just I'm thinking about heritage days. Public works was there helping with Heritage Days. They had their gear on. They were doing their jobs. So like, but that wasn't a city event, but of course they're going to wear their stuff. They're doing their job at that thing. And there could have been videos and they may have been and if their shift ended and they wanted to then go get a beverage or you know get a burger. We don't expect them to go and change and then come back, right? Like you just go about your day while you're there and you get a burger and you get a beer before you go home. Like not before you go home unless someone else is driving. Um but you know what I mean? Like we wouldn't expect them to go and change. And what if someone took a video of them by the Dayton bar? Is that them endorsing, you know, like it just it feels like this gets really weird >> really fast. >> Sorry, Martin. >> Just as a matter of u interest, my guys always do go back to the shop and change and get in their own vehicles before they go to do anything like that. >> Okay, thank you for that clarity. So, they would be fine. This policy won't affect them one way or the other. >> Do we need >> to clarify that part? No, I think it's in general like do we need to say like >> I delete the whole thing. >> That's what I'm saying. Do we need to say like don't wear your city stuff? Like obviously don't wear your department stuff when you're going to go have a drink in a B. Like you already have your own policies that say don't do that, right? Like you already have your own guidelines. And then as far as like us wearing like I'm I really like the city of Dayton, don't get me wrong, but I'm not going to go run around in my Dayton city council badge like to the grocery store. So I I just don't I guess I don't know like do you even need to call this out or is this just >> has this been an issue in other cities or in our city? Has this ever been an issue? >> Uh council vaness I believe it was a concern of other communities that has happened over time. Okay. and not necessarily in the city of Dayton specifically, but um >> so that's why >> there are items that have been of concern that we just say don't do that and >> okay >> um again when it's listed on a policy it's a little easier than to say hey I told you so versus it says it right there. Um again I I'm not going to fight the council to say remove it or not. I'm just here to provide a policy forward to try to make something work. So >> Oh yeah. No, and I I appreciate that. Um, so I think where I'm coming from this is when it comes to how the city officially uses logo and communication that should be here. When it comes to how an employee behaves, that should be in the personnel policy, right? Like that's so if it is an employee has messed up and there should be some thing about it that should be in like Marty's, you know, you have a policy, whatever that belongs there. It doesn't belong here. And I appreciate that they both have to do with communication in some sense, but I think to me that is a very clear like you done messed up friend and there's going to be consequences for that doesn't necessarily belong in the overall Dayton's policy on how we communicate and use our brand and logo. So I would take out the communication specific apparel paragraph. Um and then I would take out the the what we already talked about the social media. Both of those things in my mind are more appropriate in the personnel policy because that's what it has to do with if someone messes that up and there's going to be reprimands or consequences. That's really where that belongs in my mind. >> Where you would go to find that. >> Yes. And where you would go to find it and where it talks about like what are the consequences? What is the process? Who is who is the one who gets to reprimand you on that. Right. Like none of that's in here which also I think makes this kind of muddy. Stephanie, to your point, like you said, who gets to make this decision? And here it's unclear. If it's in the personnel policy, it's going to be a little more >> laid out. Um, so if we take those things out, then I'm fine with everything else. >> Everybody else? >> No. >> Same. >> Good. Y. >> Okay. So, with those changes, I need a motion. Second. >> I can make the motion. >> I'll second. >> Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Could you repeat all that again? Seriously, SC say no. >> Somebody nudge me. All right. >> Did you not off? >> This just started to smell like defense >> all over again. Defense discussion. We'll break that down. >> Okay. So, that passes 5 to zero on the end. RFP engineering. >> I'll make a motion to Mayor Council. One thing I want to talk about and discuss is timing. So, I'm a bit concerned about getting this done. Not necessarily timing of um getting the um timeline done that I have listed. Um I'm a bit concerned to having a new engineering firm on in 3 months after approval of this because if it is not the current firm, it's going to take a significant amount of time to get that transitioned over. >> And so my thought is can we extend the actual start date to being July 1st. That gives an extra 6 months to get the process established. And again, that way we have 9 months to kind of transition if that's the case. Um, my concern is after reviewing of all of the stuff that um, Stantech and such have. It is a significant lift, a lot more than I thought there wasn't initially. I'm like, oh, we can do another 3 months. Yeah, it's going to take a lot more than that. So, I would like a little more leadup time to have the contract to be start on July 1st. So, I believe in the RFP it says starts January 1. we would just actually have a six-month start process just to give us a little more time to transition if that makes sense. >> Can you ask in the RFP and maybe it's in there and I didn't see it but u often times these things will ask for a transition plan from the applicant. >> I will be sure to add that as a transition plan. >> Thank you very much Council Fashion. I will make sure to add that. I have no problem with delaying it and I like this idea of the transition pan. One thing um is we called out that they attend city council meetings but we didn't call out that they often the engineer often attends planning commission meetings I think almost so um that should probably be called out explicitly. >> Thank you very much council member Vaness and I will add that as well. >> Right with those changes I need a motion and a second. I'll make a motion again. >> I'll second. >> All right, Scott, Dave, any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> All those oppos say no. >> That carries five to zero. On item O. >> How long of a discussion is this going to? >> Do we need a break? >> Yes. I need I need a new ice pack. We'll have a five minute recess. back and budget. >> All right, mayor, council, tonight's just a discussion item for budget. I'm kind of getting some direction from council overall and I'm just going to make some general statements here again for anybody who's watching at home later on, whatnot. I know I've said this probably 15,000 times, but I'm going to say it again. um uh levy and tax capacity go into the tax rate. The levy means the actual dollars that are received by the city. If the tax if the tax levy stays exactly the same, that means the dollars coming in next year are exactly the same. We do not get any more dollars here in the city of Dayton to run operations based on the number of homes that are put in, the number of new commercial businesses that go in. That's nothing to do with how much money you receive. It's just how much less of the pi that everyone has to um pay essentially to get the same amount of pi or dollars that come into the city. Tax capacity is the value increase of that or the value of all property within the boundaries. If there is a tax capacity increase that means there is a larger pie as the example shows and that would mean that everyone would have um there's a larger available amount of pie to be eaten by everybody or the tax capacity amount. Those two factors go into the tax rate. That's how much you actually pay on your physical taxes. So, um, by looking at your physical taxes, you could never tell me how much levy that the city has because you'd have to know those other two factors and most likely you don't know those. Um, you could find them, but again, it would take some time and effort. Um, but that is how the tax rate is figured out as the levy divided by tax capacity gives you that rate. Um, a good example that I've used in the past and just a very very basic basic one is three scenarios of the city of example. Um, year tax levy in year two is $4 million. The tax capacity in year two was $20 million. There is no tax levy increase. The tax rate in year two for a person is 20% and the average home tax bill is $1,000. In year one, it was 40%, $4 million, $10 million, and $2,000 for tax rate. So, what that means is if there is no tax levy increase, so the $4 million stays exactly the same, but doubled the capacity, the tax rate got cut in half, and that means your tax home bill got cut in half. If we had this sum tax levy increase, so we actually increased a million dollars of tax levy but still had a double um amount of tax capacity added. The tax rate would be then 25% and you would pay more than $1,000 but not more than your $2,000 that you had in your previous first year. And scenario three is the tax levy matches the growth. So essentially in simple terms, $8 million of levy. So that would be a $4 million increase matches the tax capacity in year two of 20 million or doubling which keeps the same tax rate which keeps a $2,000 tax bill for your house. That is a very very high level simple way. But I will tell you right now that that is not as simple as it is in our um time because we have fiscal disparities which screws that whole system up. Um and we love that so much. Thank you for being ahead of county. Um Dayton, I really appreciate that. So, um, so that's kind of the general examples of how taxes work. Um, for anybody who wants to sit here and watch it or look again, they can most certainly follow that scenario through the breakdown of the levy. Currently, as we sit today, our tax rate is 35.603%. If we have a 1% of tax levy change for next year, and we're looking at 2027 when we're saying next year, that's $94,000. So, every 1% is 94 grand. that $94,000 equals about a.34 or.35% change in your tax rate. And if that 1% change, the $94,000 that the city receives is about $19 a year for the average home. The tax capacity did go up in 2027 from 2026 about 9.91% or about $2.9 million. This number will fluctuate throughout the year slightly depending on valuations and changes and arguments with the county and um they'll make some changes up and down back and forth, but this will be generally pretty close to where we end up now and at the end of the year for 2027's um tax dollars. The tax levy increase that we're looking at tonight is related to the general fund specifically. I did remove all of the other capital funds beyond the park capital equipment because that one is scheduled out to have a $15,000 increase because we are currently negative in that fund. That is just going to slowly incrementally increase at $15,000 a year to be able to pay for new parks once they're needed. The plan is to have that long-term vision again to be able to have that. But the only changes that we're looking at tonight is a $927,000 general fund increase from the previous year of 2026. I will talk about what that looks like in total and you guys can um dissect from there. But u before we get there, we're going to look at what the tax levy has been compared to the tax capacity. The bigger the differences between the black line and the black line below it and the in the graph means the lower the tax rate. So as you see back in 2019, it was very close. Our tax rate was about 55%. Our tax rate today in 2026, as mentioned previously, is about 35%. So it take about three of those lines to get to the black line. Five years of historical data just for reference just to know where we we've at where we're coming from. Tax capacity change. As you saw back in 2023, there was a huge increase on the left hand side. The blue graph and or the left-hand graph with the blue line is the tax capacity change by year and the red line next to it is the tax levy change. So, as you can see, they're not exactly the same like I showed in the city of example um example, but they are there are factors in there related to fiscal disparities andor changes within tax capacities and tiff um districts that change those numbers overall. As you can see, the line on the right is pretty stagnant. I will say that our tax rate has stayed the same since 2023 or very very close um within a couple percentages. Again, those changed a little bit based on tax increment districts. it changed based on physical disparities which I don't still understand how the heck they calculate those but I once I figured out I'll let you guys know. Um and I've been doing this for a couple of years. So um tax capacity though overall has been pretty increasing quite a bit and that's just based on the fact that we have a lot of new homes. So tax rate stayed the same. Estimated for 2027 as you can see is 35.277% with that $900,000 increase in tax levy. overall impact on homes. If we were to say today, the levy is the exact or the the levy that's preliminarily looked at right now with the $942,000 total increase, $927,000 for the general fund. That would equal a 20 or a $17 decrease in taxes next year for your home if you lived in the average home. That is irrelevant of any changes in your home value. The city of Dayton has no control over that. Um, I don't know what the average increase for the homes were, but I think it was around 2% from what I remember my conversation with Josh Hoolland, the county assessor was, but I believe it's about 2% change in your valuation of your home year-over-year on average. Now, some are going to be higher and some are going to be lower, but some were in that region. We have not seen those giant increases that we saw back in 2023 for a number of years. So, um, again, everyone's a little differently. I know certain individuals who have more and certain individuals have less. So comparative data for taxes just to kind of compare to our neighboring communities. I always look at Dayton, Corkran, Rogers, Champlain. I remove Maple Grove on most of these because they are an anomaly and if we were Maple Grove, we wouldn't be having this conversation this evening because it wouldn't matter. Um because they have so much tax capacity, it is insane to me, but whatever. Um we are about half or a little more than half of what Rogers is. We're about 2.5 and Rogers is about 4 million. For our market values overall, Corkran is about the exact same as us. Champlain slightly higher, but they but Champlain is fully built out. Corkrand and Rogers is still growing along with us. Tax rates in the same communities below over the past four years or so, 2022 through 2026 because those are the final numbers that I have. I don't have any preliminary numbers for 27. So, I don't try to compare us to others when we don't have a clue what other communities are doing. As you can see that we are the only ones that are staying stagnant over those four years. Um the other ones have either gone down or gone up slightly. However, um some of them have dropped significantly like a Rogers and then have ramped up since then. Comparative data overall related to uh tax capacities and where they're found at. I'll move this over here. Um Dayton has a lot more commercial or a lot of residential along with Corkrand and Rogers. Champlain has the most amount of residential but has very very minimal commercial industrial only along its 169 corridor. Rogers has the most by far of the commercial industrial type although we are third in line or second in line I should say. >> What is >> most of that is related to gray color surprises me with respect to Champlain. What what's driving >> what drives sorry the residential? >> No the the commercial >> uh commercial >> or in commercial >> in Dayton or in Champlain? Well, >> why do we have more than Champlain? >> Why do we have more than Champlain? Because we have big bis big buildings and big buildings mean more money. >> Okay. >> Um, so we might have they might have more businesses in town like commercial businesses, but it's a very very narrow area. We have our area around 80 81 really, but a lot of them have large valuations. When you get a million square foot building, it equals a lot of valuation, especially when you fill that building up, which is now full. Um, the county looks at that as more value. And then that would mean that that's more tax capacity in in essence. >> But yeah, we are second in line compared to Rogers. Rogers has a ton of industrial and so that's kind of an anomaly. They're also hammered really hard on fiscal disparities, they get absolutely murdered every year by those. So I think they give about $8 million in whereas Champlain receives about 2 million. So comparative to where they're at in looking at the capacities, I don't know if I'd rather be on the 8 million giving or the 2 million receiving, but I'd probably take 2 million receiving. >> I say I would like to receive $2 million. So what did we pay last? >> Uh last year we we paid about 1.6 million into the bucket. >> Yes. >> Now is are we expecting a similar? >> I would expect a similar >> cuz we haven't added any new >> we have had added no new. So it's based on your residential to commercial businesses and then immediately 25% of the commercial industrial business goes away immediately into the bucket and then we receive back how much residential we have. So that's why Champlain is a a medical fiscal authorities winner is because they have a significant difference between the residential and commercial versus we are more of a on the loser side of things and Rogers is really on the loser side of things just based on the comparison. I do put them I do put Maple Grove in here in the neighboring communities of market value and tax rate just to show the various difference between the communities. If you look at Rogers, Champlain Corporate, and then Maple Grove, it is off the charts of over $10 billion of market rate u market value. Just to I I show it as a comparison, not because it's a fair comparison cuz that's not but it is to show that they have a significant Yeah, it is a significant difference that it's hard to compare against. But their tax rate is over 30% now, which it hasn't been over 30% ever. So, um, overall request for levy is $929,000 for the 2027. Let's take a look at what's being requested in those amounts. I can't continue to move this thing around. It's going great. Um, so I did look at um all major changes that are greater than $50,000 per department and then diagnose each one of those things by department. So recycling department is the biggest increase from this year um to last year or from last year to this year in 2027. And the reason for that I forgot to upgrade the major changes from 26 to 27 not 25 to 26 but recycling that is based on organics recycling. So we are going to be required to do organics recycling. Um inclination is that the city council want to put that on taxes does not mean that has to be the right way. There are other options that we can do. We can pass those um fees along to the residents through utility billing. We also can have them totally do their own and just elect to not say we're not doing anything collected and that would remove the $200,000 increase that you're seeing on the on the budget. That's a total random guess based on our cost that we got quoted for organics versus our quoted cost for recycling and expected differences between those, but it should be about the same between the two. >> What is that for recycling? I forget >> recycling per container. No um >> $250,000 a year we pay for recycling. So, we paid for 250. >> And how much does that work out to >> house? >> Um, it's about it's about $6, $7 a container per house. >> Oh. >> Per year per bill. >> Per bill. >> Per month. Yeah. >> I wasn't sure if it was monthly. >> And I think the organics one is about five something. So, I said it's about seven for recycling, about five for organics. I did the rough math and got about $200,000. >> Um, so Corgan doesn't do it yet, do they? I bet you they will. >> Although they got to be close. >> They got to be close. >> But Rogers does it. Champlin does it. Do you know how they do it? >> I do not know how they do it. Nope. I did add it. Like I said, I only use the same formula we did for recycling. For organics, >> um I would say if you're going to do the same thing with organics, I would suggest you probably do the same thing for recycling, but maybe not. I don't know how the council wants to view that aspect of things. Um we can do it whole um what do we call it? U citywide and bill it out. we can do it citywide and cover it in taxes. Unfortunately, the only the real answer is the resident ends up paying for it either way. >> It's just trying to figure out what the best rate for the resident it's going to be. Um and whether that's like I said doesn't >> if you make it a pass through, it's still a cost to us and then it's just a revenue source to us. So, it's still the same. >> But it really depends on how you want to have those res gets passed on to let's say we just say, "Okay, residents, you got to contract your own." >> Yep. >> Pickup. Yep. What >> if they don't? I don't know that answer. >> It's a great question. >> I think I think that's I think that you know we've crossed that 10,000 population threshold. So we have to do something. >> Yes. >> Right. And and I I think it's right to put some kind of a plug number in there in the budget for this part, you know, this early in the discussion to recognize it. Yep. >> You know what the right approach is going to be. I think we need to dive a bunch deeper into that. I don't >> because I don't this is county that's putting this on us and correct and and I don't know well enough what the requirements are for what the city has to provide now that we're this size and so you know that's going to drive cost >> whether it goes direct to the resident or we it gets paid through taxes is it you know kind of a separate question but we're going to have to answer it some >> this is kind of a placeholder then >> this is just a placeholder again the changes have to be put in there somewhere it can change whether you guys said want to bill them out or not or we want to have the residents do it. I don't know. These are all great questions. Like I said, this is just a placeholder to say here's where we're at essentially and we can adjust from there. >> And it should be noted that not every resident every resident pays property taxes who owns property, >> but not every resident pays utilities. >> No. >> So, >> so organics has to be paid by every single property period in town, no matter what. And so this will add if we are going to bill it out the utility billing, it's going to create a significant more work and lift for your utility billing um individual which we have one of to do that billing now because they're going to add another >> thousand plus homes to their bills because not everyone's on utilities as we speak today. So >> yeah, >> um it is a it is a lift. So >> So putting it through the taxes depending on how other cities do it, but it's cleaner and it's less work on someone who's already >> Yep. already. We have four. We have over 4,100 accounts and we have one utility billing person. So that's a significant lift. So inspections department. The major change here is related to salaries and benefits and that's with the new city planner. So we are looking to add another city planner associate planner for 2027. That is a our one new staff member request from from city staff. Um, we've operated on one planner and one community development director for a long time and you can see it in the results of the survey is that planning is one of the lowest rated aspects of the city and I think it's very very important that we have somebody additional in that department to be able to help with doing planning when something happens. Um, we need more assistance. We need more time and we just don't have that. So, >> well, they're also the code enforcer. >> They are also the code enforcer. That's correct. which has come up a couple times of like we're not >> so again so a city planner is what's being requested part of it is paid for in inspections part of it is paid for in planning that's why those two are glumped together and also um a big increase in that inspections department rough cost for that is about $105,000 for that individual employee if you add both of them up um changes in professional services with Metro West $25,000 just so we don't go over budget um in the inspection department related to public safety and also contract services with Stant tech $35,000. I don't know what that will be. These are again placeholders cuz we're going to go for RFP for engineering. That might come in less or more. I have no idea. And then we can adjust those numbers. But again, placeholders based on what historically we've been at and um try to get it a little closer to budget so we're actually, you know, in line. Planning department. Biggest change in this one is the comp plan. Um about $125,000 of professional services. I was not aware that we could um use $60,000 grant that we got from Hipin County for the comp plan. So that may decrease that already as we said today. So um that was a placeholder for how much it would cost. We'd be able to add the rough cost that we've seen from other communities that have gotten comp plan updates is somewhere between 150 and 175 give or take depending on how much work is needed. Um we already had some money in there from 2027 that we'd be able to utilize and repurpose to be able to help with that. So the increase was specifically going to use that increase plus the number that we had from 2026 to repurpose some money. police department. Another increase of 273. Hate to put it on you, Paul, but most of it's just because of your employees. Yeah. Most you're the most expensive department in the city. And I think he smiles about it, but it's true. Um and uh but yeah, so we put a $221,000 increase um for current employees based in there and then a change in overtime of 25 grand. We've seen a ton of overtime increases um just because of the amount of things that are needed within the the department. the number of um events that we have that we're utilized with is just everything's growing for our um >> are we thinking about changing our fees when people have events that require law enforcement? >> I'm going to say that that's a council decision. But I wouldn't >> if that's what's hitting their overtime and it's private events for private then they should pay for that. That should not be coming out of the taxpayer dime >> except we've discussed this over and over and over again. What will happen is you will kill event and is that city one limit? >> Y >> me personally >> well you might you don't you don't care about events. I understand that. >> I know that's why we have that's why there's five of us up here to have this conversation. I just at a certain point and maybe it's not all but maybe it is a portion because like >> well we already parked money over to pay for that >> in the budget we put a chunk of money to cover >> 20 grand $22,000 just >> council >> yeah increase >> anything else you want to add there chief >> no okay >> sometimes it's better to say nothing >> say nothing yeah probably um but otherwise there's a total of $25,000 changes in like professional development county jail fees, contract services, um other equipment, professional services, so on and so forth. Just a bunch of small line items. They're about five grand a piece. I added them all together because they're about $5,000 each and they do equal some real money once you add them all together. The fire department um change is mostly related to additional duty crew or paid on call time and it also is related to some changes within current employees and our repairs and maintenance. The repairs and maintenance specific items related to the ladder truck and tower that we just purchased cuz we're not sure. I have no idea. Um, we could change the number down to zero if you want to, but um, when it's needs repairs, uh, I don't know where it's coming from. So, that's the reason for the change. Again, we don't have a clue. Chief and I went back and forth, came up with 18,000 bucks and could be close, but the the biggest one again is just duty crew additional time frames. Um, we'll talk more about those, what those look like. So, we can have further discussions on those, but I did want to let the council know that there's about 78 grand in there for new or additional duty crew hours that are looking to be added next year. So that's in addition to what we're implementing now, >> correct? Okay, >> that is correct. The offset is that it's not a 1:1 ratio. Obviously, if you add duty crew hours and you put two people on, then you may reduce more paid on call time frames. So it really depends on what those look like. Um potentially adding another person on that 10 to two shift it sounds like as a potential, but again, we can all talk about those things. Um if the council >> It seems like on several of these categories there's some puts and takes there. >> Yes. you know, in the in the inspections or planning area, >> you know, we'd be using land form less than we are today. So, there's a cost savings related to that. >> Yep. Slightly. Um, right now that's currently being paid for by Hayden's salary that he's in being, you know, obviously not here. And we only try to limit those to how much time he has because we also have the HR person that we implemented in 2026 as well. That will have an impact on the budget in total, but we're utilizing his salary this year to pay for that cuz we don't have the planner on and there's a little bit of give and take. and he hasn't called back saying he's sorry he left. >> He did call me in to say that, but it wasn't just that he wanted his job back. >> Probably not. >> Um, it is still open if he's listening. >> Yeah, >> make sure the mic's on here. So, >> I'm sure he's not taking a pay cut. >> We can make that work. I'm sure. Um, another another major changes that we had, we did have an increase in revenues that I'm expecting to see from police aid, MSA maintenance, fire relief aid, and safe and sober grants. Um, this is related to what's actually received as of 2025. We did the 2026 budget based on the 2024 numbers because they're not known until the end of the year or near the end of the year. I never went back and adjusted them. We are actually collecting as much revenue as we got in 25. I have in the budget for 26. So, this is the change why you see an increase in 27 is because I didn't make an increase in 26 of those numbers. So, um and then there's an election decrease of $44,000. I think that's important to note even though it's not 50 grand. It's close. >> Yeah, >> it up it ups and it es and flows based on what we see from >> elections which are there's no elections next year. So, >> a bunch of changes smaller than 50 grand. Administration went up. That's related to mostly my time. It also is related to the assistant city administrator's time and um a couple other admin admin assistance legal one up 25 grand. This is related to our increase in data requests. We as increase of data requests we have to review them for legal redaction which creates a ton of time. We have spent roughly $10,000 in the city of Dayton over the last two months or about two and a half months on reviews of data requests and legal redactions. Um it is amazing to me how much we spend on legal just to have them review it. But that's just the world we live in today. So increase of that just based on historicals. Um and hopefully that's enough. I don't even know if it will be but that's my guess. City clerk is related to um that new HR position again because it's now in the city clerk budget which it wasn't previously. It's not an overall increase of the budget but it is in that line item overall in the department. So I do want to make sure that that's noted along with finances. The same thing that increases related to the HR position. Um, also an increase of $10,000 for professional services as we are using more and more services related to just um helping us out with um different financial things. Something that we talked about tonight, Ellers and looking and trying to get more financial projections done. Maybe that's something I can utilize for professional services overall. Um, and also time related to ABDO too, just because I don't know what that's going to look like in the future. It may be less, it may be more. These are just placeholders at this point. Central services, an increase of five grand. This is based on utility changes. all utilities go to central services now instead of individual department budgets because it doesn't make any sense for a department that oh use police and public works they share them 50/50 and they have no control over who opens the garage door who doesn't so now I'm punishing them in their department to be able to say you got to reduce your budget to make it work um it's in central services overall so it's a shared one it this is one I want to talk about because it's a increase of almost 40 grand and it has nothing to do with anybody in this building besides the fact that our financial software is being phased out. Um, our financial software is no longer being allowed to have a net or a serverbased system. It has to go to a cloud-based system. Um, I was able to conquer the company to have them allocate their costs over a one-year period to allocate it over 3 years with no interest to say that we can pay it back over 3 years if we were able to stay with that company. Um the increase is about 20 grand or so for um or it's $20,000 a year for the um annual subscription. Right now we pay about 12. So it's not too much of an annual subscription increase, but the onetime costs is about $115,000. I got them to allocate that over three years about 40 grand. We'll use some contract service money that we already have available for IT services to be able to pay for that. Um we are evaluating other um services as well just as a just on a um staff of basis but do want to let the council know that's something that was brought up last year in the budget. We kicked it down the road. This year they let us know that hey essentially the net system is going away. You don't have a choice. You got to get rid of it or you can move to different software. Um so far we've had pretty good luck with BSNA. Um there are some benefits to having online programming. Uh one of those is the fact that we get immediate field inspections. So what happens is Metro West goes out in the field, does an inspection, and if they don't come in in sync with our system that they have to do every or twice a month, we don't see that inspection. So let's say they went out and did an inspection. Homeowner calls us the next day and said, "Hey, they were here yesterday." I'd say, "I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see anything." So we can't issue it or issue anything until they sync with our system. And that might take two weeks. Um, with this new BSNA online program, it would be immediate. So it would be syncing as we go. Another comment that I wanted to bring up forward, contingency. This is again just a placeholder for council directed spending. Council wants to do this, council wants to do that. I think it's important, but also I want that saved for if the council doesn't want to do anything this year. We are at least saving for the future a little bit at 50,000 bucks. Starting it out small, hoping that we can get something moving forward. Contingencies are very common amongst communities to have for savings, but I would specifically have this contingency to be only council directed. It wouldn't be able to say, "Oh, yeah. I I'm the city administrator now. We need to do a study on blah blah blah." It would have to come to council and say, "Hey, this is what we're utilizing. This is what we're doing." This is no different than the funds utilized for the um nonprofit dollar. So, we say, "You got to this $22,000 of council directed spending that they can say we're going to remove overtime. We're not going to charge that nonprofit. We're going to utilize our tax levy dollars out of that one fund." This would be very similar, essentially a savings account for the city overall. activity center increase of five grand and then public works and parks actually a decrease this year um from Marty. Most of that is related to we are siloing our employees a little more and providing them with um more specialization in water and sewer versus in public works overall. And so because of that that changes percentages of people's usages and where they're actually utilized for whether that's water sewer fund or in parks um and public works. So because of that, when you change allocations around, it changes where people are allocated to. Does not mean that we lose employees, just means that they're becoming more specialized. Um, and so we do have two employees next year that are or that were already this year that are basically only used in the water fund. And specifically with the well treatment plant, we've had more and more of that. So we are looking to have that reflect essentially in our budget process in 2027. So they're they're essentially coming off the levey or some portion of them and going onto the waterfront. That's correct. Or what >> because that's exactly what they're doing every day. They're here doing something with the wellhead treatment plant. They're doing something with a well. They're doing something with the lift station. They're testing something. They're doing water samples, what have you. Um water meter um change outs related to, you know, whatever new builds or that's essentially what they're doing all day long is water related stuff. And so because of that, I don't know why we would pay them on the levy if it should be on the water rates that those employees come off of. >> So basically, we're just looking for direction. Anything specifically that the council wants to discuss or have conversations about? We will talk about the CIP and long-term plan at a later date because that will be a larger and longer discussion and I understand that completely. That will also have an impact on the general fund overall because they do eb and flow. It is the total tax levy. But for now, I'm just looking for some direction. If you have any specifically tonight for questions or comments that you want me to address, plan will be to have some sort of work session before the next council meeting if we can. Um, starting at probably 5:30 is my guess, unless there's any major major concerns. But that's all I have for tonight. >> Currently, you're currently you're you're looking at that uh 930 grand is about 10% just over 10%. >> Correct. I'm going to get back. Yes. And I'm thinking it's going to be roughly close to the same last year. Just salary increases and benefit increase cost was roughly about five or 6% of the of that increase. >> It's not that much this year. >> It's not that high. >> No, not even probably not even close. I think the total changes of salaries this year, I believe it was in the staff report. If not, I think it was like 170 grand. Maybe it's like $170,000 total. Um, there's new employees in there obviously as well. So if you add a new employee in there, then you have to add to the 170. So it's probably >> 270 then >> 171,545 for 3% salary adjustment. >> There you go. >> Step increases and benefits. >> There you go. So that's only 1%. One and a half%. >> I mean, I personally like to keep the tax rate at as close to 35.6 35. >> I think it's a good start. >> Like that's where I'm at. Um, >> and there'll be some eflow. Like I said, recycling, that's a huge one. Um, we take away 200 grand that can go towards >> capital equipment or pavement management and we say >> and again or the the taxes. I mean, >> I'd like to see more towards the slush fund. >> Well, because we've got that. >> Yeah, I want to save. I'm I would I personally would keep the tax rate at pretty close to where it is. And >> what do we have in our temp fund? >> A 1.8 8 million, >> right? >> What percentage of the budget do you want to have in a slush fund? >> Well, I mean, we have the big projects coming up, >> the big capital improvement money for something. >> We have 1 point what did you say? >> 1.8 give, like I said, it's give or take $10 million budget. So, how much do you want in a slush fund? >> Well, are we building a new city hall? >> No, not yet. >> I would like to on the record. You guys are going to never say no to spending money. >> I know that. But >> I say no to spending money all the time. I tell these guys no all the time. It's fun but >> but like I don't fund but I don't know if you think it's a slush fund. It is a >> It is a slush fun. >> It but and maybe savings account. >> It's a savings account for some big ticket things >> and directed at the big ticket things >> and then and maybe that's the conversation >> and we do have to still have that conversation. >> Yeah. CIP long-term plan is not included in this number because I know it's a it's a related but separate topic. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, but to me, I'm okay keeping the tax rate as close to where we're at and I would like to think about >> So, the tax rate would be if we had that number would be 35.277. >> And I'm okay even going up to what it was last year at 35.6. >> Personally, >> I don't want to go past 36. Like, >> for me, ballpark, I mean, going up is is not what we want to discuss. Um I think there's maybe room for for a little more here. But what I would like to understand maybe a little more is that um with the tax capacity increase >> you know what what percentage are of that percentage what amount is uh new build and what amount is increased property values. >> Yep. I have. So, normally I have that number, but because we don't have the local board of appeals anymore, I had to request it from the county, which I have not heard back from them as of today. >> Yeah. And I figured we'd get that by the time we >> Yes. Yes. By the time we get that conversation started, >> that'll be important to me, too. >> I I don't believe it's the full I'm going to go back a couple of slides here. I don't believe it's the full 9.91 because there's obviously a change in valuations from commercial. As you could see, they went up a million dollars. I'm guessing it's around two because that's what >> well that's what they that's what he kind of said about part the overall >> yeah I would guess about 2% is probably your change in valuations whether that's commercial industrial residential in whatever may have you and the rest is probably new construction is my guess >> and again that's a very brown number but >> and Gary your uh concrete pad is that that's included in yourund >> no council sonic is not so I won't get into too much discussion question to say for the CIP, but um there is dollars that um in the CIP for reconstruction of the parking lots for city hall or both fire stations, however you want to look at it. And so just roughly I took $25 per square foot of concrete needed ballpark. Um if you take that, it's about $350,000 for the space that we think that we need and the rest of it will remain um asphalt. Um, but part of that money, I think 200,000 was in 2029 if I recall for replacement. >> And I don't remember if that's both stations or just one. >> Oh boy. >> But not to get too deep into CIP, but that's roughly kind of just to get an idea. >> Yeah. The cost for the concrete is not included in that. >> Scott, don't you have a guy? >> We never How much concrete? I'm wasting my breath every time I say that. >> Okay. >> Any other comments, questions, concerns? I have a general direction of where the council's been at historically. So, I'm kind of >> Anybody else have any comments? >> All right. We are on to item P. So, close session pursuant to Minnesota statute section 1305 subdivision 2B for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authorities. That's a motion. I'll need a second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. All >> those oppos say no. We're good to go. Okay, we will need a motion on item Q. >> Make a motion to approve as we discussed during the closed session. Is that >> second? >> Is that the correct language? >> Sarah and Scott, is there any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed say no. That motion carries five to zero. And if there are no other issues will be adjourned. And we're journal.