United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Any changes to the agenda? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Um, we are looking to eliminate 4A. Uh, the Lakeville school superintendent had contacted me this afternoon and asked if we could reschedule for the December 19th meeting. Okay. Any motions? Motion to approve adopt approve agenda as amended. Second. It's a motion by Amanda, second by Josh. All in favor? I. Agenda is adopted. So, at this point, we'll open it up to public comment. Is there anyone here that cares to speak under public comment about anything not on the agenda? You got something? Jody Lucas 26501 Xerxes Trail. Holy crap, that's really loud. Um, we are doing another well test to help everyone create their own baseline since only 20 wells are being tested. It will be done December 14th from 9 to 1. There is no education but Minw is going to be there. It's uh Minw and MGWA which are all hydraologists and will professionals will do obviously the nitrates and chlorine on site for free. Um but we are doing maganesees and arsenic tests at a discounted rate $16 per test. So you can drop off your water in not a plastic baggie but a container that please do not expect to get it back. it's very hard to do so, but um it will be collected. And then we've added a couple of other evenings, Thursday and Friday, but Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 1. And if you go to the notagrager site, you can pre-register prepaid. And just there, we found out that well owners have zero rights except when you get a new well and you close a well and seal it. So, we want to make sure that everybody is protected. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else care to speak for public comment? All right, we'll close public comment. Move on to consent. Does anyone have any items on consent they'd like removed or quick questions on? I'll entertain a motion. So move a motion by Josh to approve consent. Second. Second by Amanda. All in favor? I. We have no public hearings. Is that true? Doesn't truth and taxation involve a public hearing? Technically, it's not a hearing, but the city attorney has requested that when we do hold it, we open and open the public comment as a hearing. Got it. Okay. Uh so couple items or a few items on general business. Uh we're continuing the discussion we had at the last meeting. Is there anything? Yep. Um just really quick, the first item on the agenda is just revisiting the concept plan um that have been presented for uh by Tamarack Land Company for the Highlands at Eagle View. Um there we go. Um council will recall that at your last city council meeting uh we reviewed this concept uh concept plan E and the con uh city council had expressed um support for general support for the concept plan with the inclusion of park facilities within the development. Um the parks commission and planning commission had previously reviewed and had opposing recommendations regarding park dedication. Um based on feedback received from the city council staff prepared some highle park concepts. Um, two concepts uh were created that could accommodate a playground area, a picnic shelter, and a sport court. Uh, we worked with a landscape architect at uh, Bolton and M um to help us with the size sizing um, of those facilities. Uh, the results um, just those three types of facilities resulted in the loss of um, three lots. The first um concept was uh shown here adjacent um to the infiltration basin um kind of in the center of the um in the center of the development. You can see the concept here. Again, these are intended to just uh depict the you know kind of minimum amount of land that would be needed to um accommodate those facilities. Um and then the secondly, we just basically took a screenshot of that and flipped it over to the other side of the pond. Um and uh just reviewing the subdivision ordinances require 8% land dedication or cash in lie of land that would uh be four acres. Um if the city council supports the concepts that have been provided that just show the playground area, a sport court and um enough space for a picnic uh shelter that would result in a combination of cash and land because it does not total four acres. Um that the area that is shown here is about equivalent to the area of the Boulder Heights Park area if you um can envision that. Uh this was just a high level concept plan that we asked Tamarak to a ghost plat for the property to the north. All of that is currently located outside of the township, but that might just give a little bit of um scale to um where that park would be located. Um and again, it's the the sites that we identified were adjacent on the kind of on the norththeast and northwest sides of um that center. uh retention and infiltration area. Um you may recall city staff had identified uh 21 recommendations or just things to note for the developer as they proceed forward if they proceed forward. Um, one item has been changed here based on city council feedback at the last meeting that the city council does recommend um, parkland and cash contribution if you do support this particular concept uh, to fulfill the park dedication requirements. So, um, the city council is being asked to provide feedback on uh, the concept concept E with the inclusion of park dedication as depicted on one of these concepts. Um and then noting the 21 conditions or comments related to the concept plan. Okay. Thank you, council. Any thoughts? I I like the fact that the park was included. I think that's great. Um I I appreciate that. I don't I understand it's tricky to give up lots. It's not an easy business to to do. Um, but with a development this size, I think it's important. So, I appreciate the work on that. Um, I'm good with the concept plan is proposed. I think it looks fine, man. Josh, I'm good with it. Okay. All right. Is there anything else being asked of us on this? Okay. No, I'm just current confirming for the meeting minutes that Yes, I nodded as well. Okay. That I mean, I love it. I appreciate it. in support of concept E with the inclusion of um land that would accommodate those park facilities. Yep. And there's 21 items to note that would be inserted into the meeting minutes. Perfect. Thank you. Next item, hazardous building. Um we have one. Oh, shoot. Did I skip Oh, I skipped the assessment part. All right. I skipped the Okay. And this item as well was discussed at the last meeting related uh to the same development proposed Highlands at Eagle View um proposed by Tamarak on the Wgner property. Uh really quick high level review is um that the city facilitated a public improvement project back in uh the 2005 to 2007 time frame to accommodate what uh was planned as a number of developments including the new Prague um elementary school and development on this particular property. um through joint special assessment agreements. There was a deferred assessment placed against this property that totaled um the principal amount was $689,000. Um was originally levied at 5.42% interest rate that was later refinanced. Uh the development didn't occur because of the recession. Um so the city has continued to pay the debt service on um this bond related to um including assessments related to this property since that time. Um the again the principal amount of the assessment was 689,000. Um based on u the original assessment agreement um the debt s or the the amount due would be over a million dollars. Um the debt service for Victory Fields through 2024 based on what the city has actual actually paid um is 829,000. Um the debt service for this property uh through the retirement of the bond which I believe is next year. um would have would be 938. So the remaining debt service is 108,000s. Um Tamarak Land did submit uh some performant information at the last meeting. They have not resubmitted any um thing with the loss of these three lots uh but have directed staff to continue to seek council approval of a reduction in the assessment to a principal amount of a $200,000 contribution. And there was a split um kind of decision on this at the last meeting or conflicting opinions. We were hoping Kate would be here but um to uh untie the untie the split but Kate was unable to be here tonight. So um just reviewing really quick. I have the estimated building permit fees, developer fees, and annual property taxes that the city would receive if this property were to develop in the near term. Um and then uh city attorney notes that deferred assessments um cannot be collected after 30 years. Um that would be 2037. So city council is being asked to provide feedback regarding um the contribution of $200,000. Okay. Thank you. We had a discussion on this last time. We have the same faces here. So, has anyone given this further thought? Are there any different opinions? Where does everyone stand? Who wants to go first? I mean, I haven't changed my opinion. Remind us what was your position? I was I think I more than this initial offer, but I was less than your 500. Okay. But no specific number in mind stands out to you. It's just somewhere in between the 200 and the five. Yeah. Okay. Josh Gina, can I ask a question of Amanda? Sure. Does that change at all with a quarter million dollars given up for Parkland? Just curious. Or maybe plant the seed. Think about it. I'm not putting you on the spot. Uh but I mean so put on the spot. My position, my position was, you know, I am certainly okay with the 200,000 with losing $240,000 or more, whatever it's going to be with land dedication and cash. I am willing to go even further um because I want to see this land developed. Uh I want to see tax revenue come in and I want to see this move. Period. Land dedication would have been regardless of this. that's required. So they could they could have paid cash in lie of land dedication and typically the net financial impact is that the cash in lie of has a smaller financial impact on the overall performance to the project than losing lots. I mean, I am too. I I've softened a little bit. Um, but I don't know if it's enough to really make make things work. Um, you know, I said my bottom line was five. I do want to see this property develop. I do want to see it move forward. I I'll just I'll lower my floor to four and that's as low as I'll go. Is anyone Jane? Are you willing to move at all? Are you willing to compromise? I mean, yeah. I think four would be okay. Okay. Amanda, I mean, is this where we start? like it's I'm I'm like is this like a counter offer that we send out and then or is it something that I think it's we're not making a final decision here essentially because they could come back with something else for us to consider. Go ahead. They can always come back with something to consider. The developer has indicated both at the last meeting and this one that they that their intent was not to provide the 200,000 as an opener, but as a but as a fair and honest um effort. Here's the reality. We will never see their books, nor should we necessarily see it. It's like any other negotiation. Do we feel that it's reasonable? Um the reality is if this project doesn't develop and it delays a year or two, the I'm just going to insert here a little bit. At full buildout, this development would generate about $300,000 a year in property taxes. A one-year delay would equate to a greater amount than the gap that you have as a as a council. Um, do they have the capacity to pay? We don't know. Do is 200 more than fair? Don't know. The council just needs to be comfortable with what they feel is appropriate in the best interest of the city and then be willing to live with the results of that position. All right. If we were taking a vote and the numbers 400, Josh, this is a hypothetical vote. It's a hypothetical. You're not making a motion. not making any motion. Just to be clear, I would not support that. You would not support 400 because it's too high. So, you would vote no. Okay. Anyone else feel? I would vote yes. Okay. Amanda, here I am again. I mean, I'm with Gina on the yes. I know. That's what I mean. So, if you're a no, then we're then we're no different than we were two weeks ago. We need to support the city. The 300,000 is the city's property tax or that is the estimated city portion once it's fully built out. So if you move the date of when it's fully built out by a year and the fully built out is the the first the 50 acres not the the lighter piece of the map. And to your point, we're not making a decision. This isn't a final vote, but I I think it's fair for the developer, the property owners to know what the number is that we really want to work with. And I think we've provided some ballpark direction, but I think probably need to firm that up a little bit. Can I just ask, you're saying that you don't feel like it's a final vote, but I feel like it is. I mean, this it feels like a point of final direction to the developer, the property owner, and the builder. So, I I guess I don't understand what I mean, it's not a formal there's no motion. There's no formal vote, but we're still working through that to give that appropriate direction. Is that kind of what you're asking? I feel like what direction you give is going to be it should be solid solid direction. And I'm saying the same thing I said last time. I mean, we are potentially throwing away $300,000 plus connection fees plus further development along that entire area because we're stuck on a number that in a few years goes away completely. We're leaving the land owners with being unable to do anything with this. I mean, I think if we're looking at the best interest of the city, it's bringing in additional tax revenue. We can let this sit for 101 15 years and we say it's in the best interest of city and it's really not because then we're not gaining anything out of it and that's and that's just where we're philosophically different perspectives here but with bringing in the tax revenue won't we increase services I don't see that as why are you shaking your head Josh I don't buy that for 50 for 50 own I mean or 50 acres of development of however many lots it is. Uh 153 300. Yeah. But again it's it's a million well I can't remember what the fees were. Uh the original connection fees like all the stuff and it's almost a million dollars. Uh 800,000 uh and then yeah it just it it doesn't make sense in my brain why we're even resisting this. uh we can sit on it and do nothing and tell them to go away and continue to eat it until we don't get anything out of it and then we're not getting a development out of it. We're not getting tax revenue that goes on into perpetuity forever. Uh it just it boggles my mind. Yeah. Any additional thoughts? Well, I'll respond. I mean, I couldn't disagree more. I think we we've been taxing our residents for this for this development that did not work out and we've been taxing them for a long time. They're paying for something they'll never see. They'll never get. I think we do owe it to our taxpayers to collect what's reasonable to collect. And I think offering 500, even going down to 400, I think is a reasonable thing to write off and eat the rest as a loss. Um, yeah. And to the argument that the property will just sit forever and nothing will happen. Well, that's not true. I mean, there's always going to be someone that wants to do something with the property. Does it happen now? Does it happen five years from now? I don't know. Do we run the risk that the potential tax assessment goes away? Yeah, we do. Right now, it's a risk I'm comfortable with and that number of 400 is what would make me comfortable moving off of it. And if we're not really willing to find a number that's going to work in between, then we're kind of at an impass. And this could hypothetically wait until the 19th, assuming we can get a full council here. We could. I hate continuing to continue stuff, but I'd rather continue it than deny it or to potentially run the risk of throwing it away. So, make a motion. I would make um Well, I mean, I mean, we need No, I'm I agree. Like, I think Kate should be here. I think it's We need an odd number. I don't know. I 400's too high is where I'm currently sitting. Yeah. I'll make a motion to continue it. So moved. Motion by Amanda. I'll second it. All in favor? I. All opposed. All right. Let's get continued to the 19th. Sorry to keep dragging you guys here. We'll have a full council and can break the tie. All right. Item B. Okay. So, tonight I'm going to be talking to you about a hazardous building here in town. Staff have identified a residential deck at 388 Rowena Court South that poses a threat to public health and safety. The home has been unoccupied since at least March of 2019 following a major water leak. says a cheering. Weird. Gosh, is this what we're going to have to put up with? I might have to just present it like that. I don't know. Are you leaving in 10 minutes? I don't know why it's doing that. You got I shared a window. It's only there in the window. That's what I did last time. It's not working. Okay. Well, if this everyone can see, I'll speak loudly so you don't have to read so closely. Uh, but staff have identified a residential deck at 388 Rowena Court South that poses a threat to public health and safety. The home has been unoccupied since 2019, uh, following a major water leak on the upper floor. The deck has been in a continuing state of decline ever since. Staff's first letter was sent to the property dated June 27th, 2019. Um, currently the the deck is lacking multiple support beams and the foundation is cracked and uplifted in multiple locations. Staff requested the city's building official to perform a visual inspection from the street. Um, in his letter, he supported a 10-day notice uh for correction of the issue. That information was included in a letter sent by staff to the property owner on September 12th. September 30th was the deadline. Um, no action was taken. Here's some more recent pictures, I guess. No, you can't see that either. Okay, sorry about that. Uh, so here's some recent pictures. As you can see, the center support post is just laying on the ground. Um, and then the support post next to the stairs is uprooted out of the ground. As of November 2020 or November 22nd, staff notes that no contact from the property owner has been made. Additionally, no action has been taken to correct the structures. For these reasons, staff are recommending that the city council adopt resolution 2490, which will order the repair or removal of the hazardous conditions. Uh if the resolution is adopted, staff will mail the property owner hazardous property order, which will give them 30 days to correct the condition. If the condition is not corrected within 30 days, the city um will seek permission from the district court to do the work themselves and assess the property. Um here's a older picture. As you can see, the deck is starting to deteriorate. This is in 2019. The center post was still somewhat standing at that time. The city council is being asked to adopt resolution 2490 ordering the repair or removal of hazardous conditions. I have some attachments here. I guess you can't really see them that well. If there's any questions, I'm here to answer them. Why wouldn't we do this? Is there a risk? There is a cost. Um so I mean so we have a responsibility to protect public health life safety which is why we have the hazardous building statute in place because there is one it takes time it's costly and we often don't recover any or all of the cost of doing it. We usually push as hard as we can to get compliance from the property owner. In this case they're completely non-responsive. So if we end up doing the work and correcting the issue, we will at that time assess the cost of doing that back against the property. And then it will depend on the future circumstance of that property whether or not we have an opportunity to recover those assessments. Any further questions or motion? Are you okay with a motion? Yeah. Motion to adopt resolution 2490. Motion by Josh. Second. Second by Amanda. All in favor? I. All right. Annual gambling permits. Um, this item is under general business because, uh, Kate is owner of one of the businesses for the premise. Um, she's not here tonight, but it was placed under general business. We're just asking the council to approve resolutions 2491 and 2492 uh related to premise permits for local nonprofit organizations. Can it be done in one motion? It can. Oh, I was going to say so moved. Sorry. Motion to approve resolution 2491 and resolution 2492. Motion by Amanda. Second. Second by Gina. All in favor? I. Passes. And one more. I don't know that we need a presentation. Accepting donations from Firehouse Grill resolution 2493. I will make a motion to approve. Second. Amanda will second. All in favor? I. Truth and taxation. Josh, you speak up. So, tonight we are providing the truth and taxation presentation that is required under state statute and a good idea to provide an opportunity for our residents to hear from and provide feedback related to the 2025 budget. Um, before I get going, uh, I notice that we don't have any general members of the public online. Is there anybody within the audience who has specific items that they would like to cover? One common item is people are questioning their valuation, which is not what tonight is about. And then we occasionally have people that actually show up for the TNT presentation. If we don't have anybody, we'd be happy to provide the full presentation, all 46 slides, but if uh the council and audience would prefer a more abbreviated presentation, I would be happy to oblige. Well, all three of us were just looking at our phones. Yeah. So, I don't think we necessarily want the full presentation, but is anyone Okay. Okay. We are required to provide it and there are certain elements. So I will skip over the less um required items. So, if we're looking at the 2025 budget, and we are looking at the drivers within the 2025 budget, um the big drivers in the change are the reallocation of the public works salary expense, uh increased funding for parks capital outlay, a new administrative position, um primarily with financial responsibil finance responsibilities, decrease in the debt service levy, um a reduced use of public safety aid funding for police officers. council recall that we had stepped in the use of that aid over a period of three years and decrease in LGA in the amount of $50,000 and an increase in fiscal disparities in the amount of $142,000. If you take a look at our 2025 budget, you'll notice that as a community, um we are heavily dependent upon property taxes for revenues as a city. Interestingly enough, if you take a look at a decade ago, the proportions are roughly the same. So, our revenues and where we have our revenues from um have continued to be the same that we are a property taxf funded city. If we take a look at where we're spending the money, uh you will note that nearly half of our budget goes to public safety. So, that would be police, fire, um uh civil services like sirens, things like that. Um if you and uh dog catcher, if you look at where we were 15 or a decade ago, you will note that uh public safety was only a third of our budget. Um and that's just a change of proportions. The greatest growth in our general fund budget has been in the public safety realm. If you take a look at the 2025 preliminary budget, um you will note that we were looking at a preliminary budget of just under $3.8 8 million total levy which included the general fund, capital outlay, community events, the fire fund, equipment certificates, and bonded debt for a total increase of 6.75%. However, the council has been working diligently through the fall and the and everybody's uh proposed taxes are based on the preliminary budget. The final draft of the budget, which we discussed with the council earlier this evening, uh proposes a levy of $3.75 million and with a 5.34% uh increase in the levy. We do have the estimated tax impact that's different than the levy. Um the estimated tax impact is used as a tool in developing the budget. It's based on community average or median for household valuation. Um it's information that is provided to us by the Scott County Auditor's Office. And when we look at tax valuation, uh, people should understand that a 1% tax impact is equivalent approximately to 16.5 or $17 per year in change in the taxes for that typical home. And a 1% levy increase is appro equivalent to approximately um $31,000 in the amount of the levy. A couple I'll skip right to the tax impact. So, the 2025 preliminary budget estimated a tax impact for that typical home, uh, which was seeing a depreciation between, um, just no change and a 5% decrease in their value of a negative 2.6% or $48 decrease in their taxes. However, as we got into this, that did not seem right to staff and we contacted the county. We are in the unusual situation where 85% of the homes in the community are seeing a decrease in their valuation and as a result it cost some skewing in the tool. So we believe the negative 2.6 is understated by two to 3%. Um which means that the preliminary budget would have resulted in something probably closer to zero or half percent increase for a lot for the average home. However, when we take a look at the final draft with the reductions that were discussed, uh that the tool is estimating a negative 4.1% tax impact. But when you apply the adjustment for the understatement, and this is a best guess, it would move it something closer to two 1 to 2% decrease for the majority of homes. So, uh, even taking into account that it's an estimate that we can't specifically calculate, we've matched it against some of the proposed tax statements for people that we've contacted in the community. And we think it's reasonable to assume that most homeowners in the community would see level or a slight decrease in their property taxes for the city portion of their property taxes for 2025 with the final draft levy that was proposed. So, the decrease tax impact was $74. We don't think it's going to be that much. We actually think it's going to be something closer to maybe 0 to $23. Um, approximately 14% of the homes experienced an increase because not everybody sees a appreciation or depreciation as every other home in the community. approximately 86% saw a decrease in their valuation. Uh when we take a look at the weighted tax impact across the board, it's a negative 3.9% but again that will because of the tool be a little understated. Um the preliminary budget by comparison is 2.55%. So clearly the council's work to reduce the tax impact over the course of the budget cycle. One of the things I like to point out to individuals is that when they're looking at changes in their property taxes, they should look at their valuation. Um, if they have a change in valuation up or down, that's going to affect their property taxes regardless of what the levy is. And then if you go and down and take a look at only the city portion of the property taxes, your property taxes are made up not only of the city, but also include the county school district and special taxing districts such as the Met Council, Mosquito Control District, the Scott County CDA, the watershed, etc. Currently, if you're, for example, located in the Lakeville School District, the city property taxes only make up 30% of your total property tax statement. Are there any questions? I like the picture. That was me this afternoon. That That's it. Okay. So the the city is required to take public comments. So we'd need to open a hearing. Mr. Mayor. Yeah. So we'll open up a public hearing if anyone has comments, questions. Now is the time. Seeing and hearing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on it and then we'll move forward to discussion by council. Is there anyone that does have anything before we look to the closed meeting section? Okay. So, we do have a clo we do need to close the meeting. So, but I do want to point out before I announce that that there is another um there's one other agenda item that follows the closed meeting. It relates to the performance review of um Tom Terry and a um his employment agreement. So I don't want to make it look like we're trying to sneak something out or sneak something over anyone's eyes. There is there is going to be another item. So I have to ask everyone to step out. The meeting will be closed for the annual performance evaluation of city administrs that we have from the agenda. Yeah, let's remain time. So, let's tackle reports administration. Um, I do not have anything for the council. Um, overall, I do want to confirm I had a question in the last email council update. We do have the opportunity in 2025 to do what we did this year and just evenly space the November meeting in mid- November between the last meeting in October and the first meeting in December. That worked out really well from a workload standpoint from um for staff. Is the council okay with doing that in 2025? Okay, I don't have anything else. Jeff, is there anything for public works? Just a note, Corey says they've been with the nice cold weather from a ice skating perspective, they have been flooding rinks. They have a couple inches already. So hopefully the warm weather on Saturday doesn't um impact it too much and then they can resume next week and they're hoping to have I think skatable ice by um holiday break which is always the goal. Nice police department on Tuesday. Nice. How are things going with the the dedicated pump at the old fish? Well, we just got our second donation. Nice. That's awesome. Yeah. Nice. Good deal. Engineering. I am pleased to report that the lift station out at Pillsbury that serves the industrial park, all the work is complete. We're going to fire that thing up for a test run on the 18th. Assuming that goes well, all city infrastructure will be in place, allowing Niagara to start up when they're ready. All right. Community development. Have any updates? Okay. Anything for parks? No minutes were included. Nothing specific. CC Linda, I wasn't at the last meeting. Sorry. Okay, it's not here. Back up. We um discussed um the tree lighting ceremony that's coming up on Saturday. So um all are welcome to attend. What time is it? 6:00. The light will be lit at 6:15. There's hot chocolate, cookies, Santa. Um, there is no meeting in December. So, other committee reports. Um, regarding scale, I was not going to go to executive tomorrow really because it's purely just planning out future meetings. Um, I'll kind of leave it to council. If you want me to represent the city, I'd be happy to, but I just don't know that it's makes any sense. All right. The other item, the other item on the agenda is Patty Nman, the director from Metro Cities, is going to be there to talk about Met Council. Exact Council and the 2050 imagine plan. Are you going to be Okay. And if there's anything worthwhile, you just Okay. Uh and then regular scale meeting is next week. I'll be actually at that one in person. So, it's actually down the street from my work. So, finally convenient. Service delivery. Uh our meeting this month was to talk about the regional training facility and the options for uh basically rehabbing and redoing the facility. Um the intent of that meeting was to present the information to the administrators and their public safety chiefs so that they would have the technical knowledge to have discussions internally and with their councils. The goal is that by February or April the representatives on the RTF board from the various member um jurisdictions will have their basically recommendations or position related to that. I've had discussions with our public safety chiefs and we'll be having those discussions in later December and into early January. So you guys can expect us coming back to you guys sometime first quarter to have some discussions about what our recommendations are related to our participation in that facility. I35 nothing since the last meeting in November and the December one is canceled but something to note for transportation I believe I read it correctly uh representative Cosnik's going to be the chair of the transport co-chair of the transportation committee so that might be a good opportunity tomorrow correct to uh leverage that relationship for the next couple years all right that tackles reports so we'll join the work session and start up the business meeting in about 15 and we are ready to go. All right, we're reopening the open meeting. A summary of the performance evaluation will be presented at the next meeting for council approval. So with that, we have one more item left on the agenda. It is an amendment to the city administrator's employment agreement. How do you want to handle this? Just long and short. Um my current agreement is last amended in 2008 to basically reflect to a large degree the merger of the cities. Um the core of the agreement actually reflects my original employment agreement from 2004. Um generally it's been whittleled down over time because when I started with the city there were no employment policies. There was nothing. And so my employment agreement essentially functioned as the employee handbook for me and everything else. So, we've whittleled things out of it over time that um were reasonably addressed by the employee handbook, but weren't specific to my position. Um for a number of years, I've been meaning to come back to council, but the best time to do that is in a performance review, and as we know, I haven't had one in four years. So, um I took a hard look at it, and there were a couple things that I was looking for, general themes to it. Um, one was to address uh some of the insurance aspects of it to reflect HSAs, um, which weren't a thing back in 2004. Um, by the way, I I am suggesting to the council and if you're agreeable to it, we can bring something back, but I think what I'm requesting with regards to the compensation to the deferred compensation plan for people who aren't taking the city benefit, I think that's something we should consider for all employees. Um the other aspect of it is taking a look at related to my separation from the city specifically to the terms related to the severance. Um there's some language in there that's relatively vague uh that I quite honestly have never seen in any other contracts and I wanted to replace that with language that is commonly found in other contracts and has commonly accepted definitions um as well. And I also am requesting a change in my severance from the equivalent of five months to six months. That is more commonly found with regards to city administrators, especially in our current market group. And I'm also requesting it quite honestly as a reflection of the fact that I've been with the city for 20 years and I'm not planning to go and I plan to be here until the end of my career unless the council says we really don't want you anymore. So um so those are the those are the big themes. There's a couple of little things um in there. Oh, and adding that subject obviously to statute that I would also get cashed out for my acred time which wasn't something that was previously addressed because there wasn't really acred time. Is there a cap on that though? We have caps in our policy with regards to how much I can how much I can acrewue. Okay. All right. Any initial thoughts? only based on my knowledgeers with the city. They do save the city quite a bit of money. Um, so I I don't know where I'm going with this. I just wanted to say that. But we we do offer a really good benefits package and over the years um there have been very few employees that have gone outside. Um I have for the most of my career here, if not all. I have trouble remembering 20 years back. Um but uh Chief Mortonson did for a period of time. Officer Hodeling did for a period of time. and there may have been one other employee that might have for a period of time, but the vast number of employees because we have such a rich plan do stay on our insurance. So again, anything that we can do to make to fill the gap to have them go on their spouses or partners' plan, I think would save us that the tradeoff would be more than worth it from a business sense. Amanda, do you have any thoughts? I can just go too. I my only it's more of a question because I think that you I mean and you kind of answered this so I don't know if it's a question for Andrea too, but the the changes you're proposing aren't anything that they're things that you've seen in many other contracts. It's kind of like catching Tom up from did you say 2008? the we in 2008 we basically updated it before taking out the stuff that was not relevant etc. But that was the last time. So even that wasn't necessarily bringing you up to speed then. It was probably appropriate for the time. Um, but things have changed um over time in some of the areas. And quite honestly, I'll be honest, I negotiated my contract with the city 20 years ago. And my level experience and knowledge on those items is different then than it is today. And I probably would have possibly suggested other things. Plus, you're also seeing evolution in contracts with city administrators over time as well. Yeah, I wouldn't say that there's anything here that's unusual. Yeah, I didn't think so. I support all of it. I'm on board. What do you need from us? You need a motion or um We need a motion to approve the amendment to my employment contract. So moved. Second. Third. All right. Motion by myself, second by Amanda. All in favor? I I All right, that's it. Meeting's adjourned. Yep. Thank you, everyone. Do we have to motion that adjournment? Well, I don't I'm just asking motion to adjurnn. Second by all in favor I