City Council - workshop

Everybody passed away over the weekend, so.

He always took time. Yeah, he's a cool guy. His brother is Mikelin, who made the Herschel Walker trade. I'm sure you're like, oh yeah, that Herschel Walker trade.

Did you hear me thinking that?

Yeah, you're like, I would have done it differently.

Wasn't that 19... That's what I was going to guess. That's exactly what I was going to guess. What time do you guys leave on Saturday?

At dark.

Well, the wheel at the dark. I don't know for sure. We had a wedding, right? We had a wedding at 10 o'clock.

Yeah. I know.

Well, but it's Labor Day, so you wouldn't have to work. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay, and some of these pantomimes, they're not just that it's fun. It's expensive to rent, but it gives them a little date.

It was outdoors. Two different buildings for the dinner, and it was for the dance and the art and stuff. What city was it in? They're not in true winery. They had some great wines and stuff. It was really pretty. It was an aesthetic winery. It was really pretty. I think that was cool, though. It was so weird seeing it. Yeah, so we looked at it. And you both did, but they were so fun.

The other thing that makes me think that is, I've never read this because of this,

Oh, yeah.

It was cool on Sunday.

Yeah, it was overcast.

Oh, yeah, yeah. It was overcast. It was cool. Okay. All right. It is 530 on September 8th. I will call this work session to order. First, we have a 2027 general fund budget draft number two.

Yeah. Thanks, Mayor and Council. So Lynn and I are going to kind of take team this. We work together along with the rest of the department heads. And as you know, and probably maybe more for those that are watching, our kind of tradition here is that we present the draft of the budget, not as a recommended budget, but a series of drafts. We very rarely are in a position where everyone says, oh, this first draft is great, and you've gotten to third, fourth, fifth drafts in the past. And so we took the council's feedback, some of the things you requested, and integrated into this. And so tonight we're looking for some additional feedback how we perhaps could make this better. So I'll turn it over to Lynn on next steps.

Yeah, so as Brent said, we brought you the first draft and we're bringing you some options tonight so that hopefully on September 21st we can bring a preliminary budget that will be the maximum tax that we will have a preliminary levy that we'll have to certify to the Carver County on September 30th. Um, and then by December 21st, we cannot increase the tax by any more than what we certified on September 30th. And that will be the date. So December 21st will be the meeting that we will adopt the final budget and levy in between September 21st and December 21st. The most information that we'll receive is probably that health insurance information, which we'll receive sometime in October. But as far as all the other numbers go, we have received most of the information. that we will have. So draft two general fund budget, what we'll see, so we have 24, 25, 26 actual. The draft one is what we presented at the last meeting and for draft two in yellow, We have reduced that down to a 16.84% increase. So we decreased that by $88,000. And we decreased the debt service levy by $88,000 after meeting with Northland Securities. So we would be paying those two debt service funds, 2013A and 2015A, by using fund balance. We used that strategy last year with a couple of debt service funds. So that decreased the debt levy by $88,000. We also were able to decrease the general levy by $24,000 by operating funds, and that involves the Loeffler operating strategy. Right now, they're coming every two weeks, and we just don't feel like that would be necessary for a 2027 initiative. So together, that decreased We were able to come to the 16.84%. And then, like I said, we are currently planning a 15% increase in health insurance, and that may or may not come to 15%. So.

So I'll take over on, so we're calling it, there's the budget ladder strategy and thinking about public services. So contingent upon the project meeting all the steps in the community engagement pieces, we're kind of planning a forward-looking approach to planning for that debt, something that we talked about during the budget preview and so although we're expecting or this shows a 1.5 million dollar debt payment or what we call debt service we're expecting and anticipating that to go down but for the sake of plan for the worst hope for the best we're using this to demonstrate different strategies that you could use so the column on your far left includes our current thinking or strategy adding $450,000 to the levy or to the budget. What that does is two things. One, it builds your capacity in future years to add, but then also you're able to use that as cash payment to prepay projects down. So, for example, $250,000 towards turn lanes and and a $200,000 contribution towards design fees that you would otherwise not have to borrow for when the project comes. The center or the brown is a alternate strategy, recognizing that you're going from zero to 450 in one year. It takes a milder approach. It goes from zero to 350. And there's a whole spectrum of choices. These are just two examples. You could use something in the middle. What we show on the far right in the green, though, is a kind of a no ladder strategy. And so if you think about in terms of our entire budget this year is about $900,000 of levy increase, and that gets you to that 16%. And out of that, $450,000, or I would say roughly half, is that. So you can imagine if you didn't have a ladder strategy and you get to the 29 budget, you're probably looking at somewhere close to 30%, 40% of the levy increase. to take on your operations and new debt for public services if that was the position you're in and so this is a an approach kind of entering in on the shallow end of the pool and then each year you build that levy so in 27 you're at 450 you add another 500 so that you're really setting aside 950 and that 950 then it theoretically in 28 could be used again to prepaid expenses, and so on and so forth. So again, this is a strategy that you'll see later on in the scenarios that we're presenting that saves $100,000 from that strategy. The council could choose to move that up or down based on your comfort level. Then we'll jump in on the capital planning.

SO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WE JUST WANTED TO DISTINGUISH HOW THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS INDEPENDENT FROM THE GENERAL FUND. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WHEN WE LEVY FOR EACH OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS, WE'RE FUNDING KIND OF A SAVINGS ACCOUNT FOR EACH OF THOSE. So we have the street maintenance, the facilities, the fire equipment, the parks, and then the general capital, or we're calling it the public services equipment. And each of those have basically a beginning balance, and then when we levy, we're adding to those. And so, for example, the example that we're going to use here and in the next slide is If we wanted to buy the command vehicle this year, for instance, we would be able to because we have the fund balance in there to do so now this year. And then we would just be adding to that to fund future capital equipment. So we just wanted to show that it is independent from what is being budgeted in CIP for each year. So the levy contribution of $100,000 or $150,000 that we're levying for each year is independent of what the CIP

year.

So in this example you can see that in 27 we're planning to levy $100,000 which brings our current balance up to $210,000 and if we do end up purchasing the command vehicle at $90,000 our year-end balance would be $120,000. So then one of the strategies that we could consider, that council could consider to lower the levy is like a freeze. So.

I'm gonna move to that one. Oh, sorry.

I didn't mean to jump ahead. I forgot you added that slide. Okay, let me back up. So capital improvement plan. So here's our current plan for increasing the streets. And that was a strategic plan of the council is to increase the capital for each section. And so you can see where we're planning on CONTRIBUTING THE LEVY FOR 2027 LEVELS, AND THEN SO ON AND SO FORTH THROUGH 2030. AND IT'S A GRADUAL INCREASE FOR MOST OF THEM THROUGHOUT. SO ONE OF THE STRATEGIES COULD BE A PARTIAL FREEZE IN EACH OF THESE AT THE 2026 LEVELS, EXCEPT FOR STREETS, BECAUSE COUNCIL HAS REALLY WORKED HARD ON CONTINUING TO IMPROVE THE STREETS THROUGHOUT CARVER. So to partially freeze all of the other capital improvement levies at the 2026 levels. And then that would keep that levy down for 2027 all the way through to 2029.

All of them lowered on here except fire. So for the 2027 partial freeze, well, besides streets, I should say that.

They don't have a planned increase in 2027. It's the same amount.

Okay. Okay, so yep, it just goes back to that one. Okay, thank you.

And this is just some narrative to support the anticipated impacts to our CIP partial freeze scenarios. It's saying that, so if we did a partial freeze, the facilities would, the impact would be kind of low because We are able to currently fund the improvements to Church by the River with what we have in that fund balance. However, for fire, it would be affecting the future operations, so that would be kind of a moderate impact if we froze those. And same with parks, the community park playground replacement, the timing of that would be impacted if we froze that for four years.

And then I'll wrap up here with the facilities program. This is a council-initiated discussion. So that partnership started in 2015. Resident rates at a variety of community spaces in Chaska. Programs and services provided by Chaska staff. So there's an element of community events and programming that they staff. There's also priority registration for other events and programs that they have in Chaska. And then below is the funding formula. That was negotiated. They came with kind of one funding formula. This was what Carver staff presented and it ended up being implemented. The one kind of policy question I'd ask the council to consider as you're having that conversation, if the partnership is discontinued, I think there's a space, and it doesn't mean you have to resolve it tonight, but I think a question of the long-term recreation spaces and then staffing of events, and is that something the city wants to continue and in what form? I think if you chose to discontinue it, There'd be a space where that question will be asked, so I just wanted to kind of plant that seed and get you thinking about it. Again, nothing that needs to be decided tonight, but just kind of a light of sight to that. And then through Brenda Good's help and support, we connected with Cheska Recreation team and staff, and they got us data on community center memberships, golf rounds, curling memberships, and then programs, activities, and events that are staffed by their recreation department. You can see the cost spread related to resident rate discounts for the top three items, and then our all-in number, which covers staffing by the CHASCA team.

Do we know what it is per person for that? Does it per person or per taxpayer cover pay $4 a year because of that or pay $10 a year because of that? The tax impact specifically, is that what you're asking about? Well, right. So just how does that shake out per resident?

I can get you that. I mean, that would be that number divided by our population.

You do a calculation table for $50,000, $100,000, $200,000, some breakdowns of what an expense like that means to the average homeowner?

Yeah. Can you recall that? Her population is what, 73, 60? 73, 78.

73, 78.

I say 7,500. Yeah, me too.

73, 78. Oh, God. Call Brenda. Okay.

I mean, it breaks, I mean...

Because it's not just residents that are paying for it, it's commercial industrial property tax owners, but it works out to $1,627 per capita.

Okay. And the tax impact on the average value home is like $37 annual decrease.

For that $120,000? Yeah. So, Lynn, if you want to run through these scenarios, and we'll kind of tee it up for the council for your discussion. All the department heads are here, so you can ask specific questions if you need to as well. I'm sorry, what numbers did you say that was? $1627 per capita on $120,097. And you said the tax impact is about $37 per household. Okay.

So besides the draft two that was shown earlier on in the presentation, Brent and I have presented three additional scenarios here. Now that's not to say that council can't come up with a different scenario, so I'll walk you through all of these scenarios. So as mentioned before, draft two, so scenario A, We reduced a draft of one that was presented a couple weeks ago by $112,000. That was that debt levy reduction of $88,000, so that's using fund balance to pay for those debt payments, and then the operating reduction of $24,000 for Loeffler. Choice number B is what I just mentioned, and then... the debt ladder structure, reducing that from that $450,000 to $350,000. So feathering it in a little bit less. So that would be those tax impacts are there, and then the increase would be 14.99% from last year's levy. And then I'll just remind you that we want to make sure that we're doing our max tax. We can only go down from here. C would be the draft two changes of 112, the ladder strategy plus a partial CIP freeze, which would equal 90,000. So that would be a partial freeze of 26 levels except for street maintenance. And then finally, The last option that we've come up with is all of the ones I just mentioned, and then also cutting the recreation facilities and programming. And that would be an 11.1% levy increase in 2026.

And then just kind of wrapping this all in, so just giving you a line of sight to how our friends in other cities around the county have their tax rate at. It's rounded at their tax capacity rate. We don't have a line of sight to what their 2027 may be, but it does kind of give you a point of view related to how we stack up. With our neighbors, and then just kind of a piece. I know the council briefly discussed that the last work session, but there, there is a narrative that we need to continue to develop and talk to residents and taxpayers about. franchise fees and the amount of revenue our neighboring cities including Laconia starting in 2027 are collecting and what how our model differs from theirs and perhaps ongoing discussions in the future of the council related to franchise fees we don't want to introduce another huge topic on top of the budget but just wanted to provide some perspective and for those residents that are following along some additional perspective on what makes revenue streams possible in government And then just kind of teeing up here, so we can move to any slide here to help you facilitate this conversation. We can also do an additional budget work session next week if you'd like. You're not required to, but it would be helpful to have some direction on a preliminary levy for presentation at your next meeting on the 21st. We could certainly provide scenarios and options, and you can vote at that meeting, just providing a little context for your discussion. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mary Johnson for where you want to start.

Yeah, I think maybe just to level set, what I would love to do is, if we're able to, COME TO AN AGREEMENT TONIGHT SO THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY WAITING UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE IN OUR NEXT MEETING WITH A DECISION ON THIS. I ALSO, I KNOW IT'S BEEN SAID ALREADY, BUT I WANT TO REMIND FOLKS THAT THIS IS OUR DO NOT EXCEED NUMBER. THIS IS THE HIGHEST NUMBER THAT IT CAN GO. IT CAN ALWAYS GO DOWN, AND IT ABSOLUTELY HAS IN THE PAST. ALSO, BEFORE WE GET INTO KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THIS IN DEPTH, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU TWO A LOT for that scenario A and kind of sharpening the pencil and figuring out a way to make things go down. That was two percentage points and every little bit counts. So really good work. Thank you for doing that. I will share my thoughts first. I don't think we can take away the recreational partnership with Chaska. shared in an email that I shared with Brent, and I believe he forwarded it on, but I got an overwhelming response from folks when I posted about this on Facebook about not wanting to see it go away. There were 41 unique responses and a lot of reach in the post. I sent a whole social media results report, but of those 41 folks, Please don't. And comments like, I don't use this, but I'd hate to see it go away. Comments like, we chose our house in Harbor over Chaska because of this agreement, knowing that we would still be able to get the resident rate. And then even things that, I don't think we, I don't think that I considered about this of like the benefits of a membership in terms of like being able to sign up your kids for swimming lessons before everybody else so that you can get in and you can get your folks to sign up for swimming lessons. I want to caution us against looking at the straight numbers on that slide that Brent shared because I think what that is missing is all of the auxiliary benefits in terms of movie in a park where there were at least 100 people there last week, the concerts in the park, and all of the other programming that takes place in our community. And it was another comment on the Facebook post, but somebody took from the packet where we presented this and was like, This is always really well received by residents, and why would you make it go away? So with that, I think we can opine, or we can kind of use that last slide as the guide.

Yeah, so I had an opportunity to discuss this about a week ago here. I had asked about the aggregate benefit of the money we're spending, the direct recipient benefit. It isn't quite what we spend with the city of Chaska, but it's a lot. It's certainly more than half. I think it was about $86,000. Is that right? Yeah, $87,000 in 2025. Okay, $87,000, which means the balance, which I think the number was about 14,000, was for everything else. It's for all of those other programs. And we can't really quantify that people are using. But I think we can state pretty safely there's no way we could recreate that for that little money. So my feeling is we are getting our money's worth out of it. I wasn't really sure before we dove into that. and in addition to that we've got resident comments commentary on it so i am comfortable with what we're spending on that because i don't think we could possibly recreate any of those other programs that people are using or the benefit for that remaining balance that's my two cents so for for me i've always

struggle a little bit with this agreement because people who are not using the services are also paying for the services. And this is an extra, this is if the sewers run, if the water works, and things like that. So I'm glad to hear, Courtney, I was on your page, I commented a couple times for people, so I'm glad you put that out there. I took our comments out of that mix when I say 41 individuals. Oh, sure, yeah, yeah.

Not that I don't respect your confidence as a constituent, but it wasn't your day.

Yeah, nope. I had just posted on there what the yearly cost was, just to make sure people, when they were, you know, commenting and reading, whether they realized that or not, right? Because it kind of becomes something just pie in the sky that people didn't realize. So, anyways, outside of that. So, one other thing I have floated around, and I don't know if this is time to... time to do it this year but was the thought of we you know we can't we don't offer we don't have the facilities we don't have a gym downstairs anymore we don't have those kind of of things that we had back in the day um in order to make it a little bit more i guess equitable in my brain is there something where we can we let the agreement go where it is you know for we're paying for people to use the golf course or paying for people to um get discounts at the community center And go to a really part-time employee who can plan events in Carver. I mean, if you're doing a music in the park, you book a band, you're down there. I mean, I'm thinking like 10 to 15, 10 hours a month. I know. Cause it would obviously be less in the winter. I don't have the building here, but just a thought of something to like roll around for the future. Maybe it doesn't become where we give the discount through our taxes to the community to use their facilities while they're already making money off of the memberships. I mean, CHASPA is not losing on this, right? They're getting more members and they're getting the membership fees that people are paying pluses on top of it. So just a thought, something to like roll around in your head for future discussions. Does it make sense that we take that part out, but then have a part-time employee at 10 hours a month who can plan some of these events around town and in our facilities downstairs and things like that. I have heard most of the residents that I've talked to, so whether it was on your Facebook page, people that I've talked to also, I would say it was probably 90% for keeping it, 10%. There was a few people I talked to who said, oh, I did not realize it was that much. I don't think that's actually right for me to just have that benefit at every taxpayer's expense. I'll be happy to pay more at the town course. So there are a few people who will say, nope, I didn't realize. For myself, if we're just going to stick to this topic right now, I think I've heard enough from folks to not cut it at this time. So I'm on board with keeping that part. Um, I don't know how far you wanted to go other things. You just want to go with this agreement right now. No.

Cause I think we have consensus. So we have a majority at this point. I just, I, I appreciate you thinking outside of the box. I think when we go down that I don't use it, so I shouldn't have to pay for it. That becomes a little bit of a slippery slope. Like I haven't had to call. God, I hate jinxes. And here we go. I'll see you at three in the morning. I haven't called the fire department. since I've lived in Carver, so why should I have to pay for that? I don't go to the parks. And I've had people say to me, I don't use the parks, why should I get taxed for that? Well, it's the cost of doing business and living in Carver. And I'm also a little worried. We literally saw the farmer's market decline because it was a really part-time employee doing the work. And not an apples to apples comparison, but

that failed and I'm, it feels a little too soon for me to love that, but. Okay. I'm going to respond to some of these. So for me, um, I appreciate your viewpoint on that, but for me playing a round of golf is highly different than when your house is on fire. Um, and then also farmer's markets around town or around the area. A lot of them are struggling because everyone wants a farmer's market. This is my business. Go to Chaska on Thursday night. Please let me finish. So I work in this industry. This is what I do, right? And so a lot of them are struggling because everybody wants one and there aren't enough farmers to go to small markets. Chaska, of course, is highly, highly visited. I don't want to keep arguing about this, but I don't agree with all of your comments.

I agree that I don't want to. Are you guys okay? Do you want to opine on this or do you understand that we're kind of at a consensus and we should figure out where we want to be with the budget?

with it.

Okay. I just want to second Christy's opinion that this is a nice to have for the city and it's a nice to have that I don't feel that everyone should be paying for the thousand or so residents that use it. But I understand that I am outvoted on this so we can move on.

Okay. I think I don't know if you guys have a a preference of kind of where we go. I doubt that it would be as easy of us all agreeing A, B, C, or D, but maybe we just kind of go around the horn and state our preferences for which of those options, or do you guys have any outstanding questions that you need answers on before we get into that?

I have a franchise fee comment, but we can do it before or after. I want you to have some strata. Okay, so I had some interesting conversations over the weekend with a group of private residents and I actually asked them, I said, hi, I said, do you guys know about franchise fees and that we don't have them? And they all looked at me like deer in headlights and had zero idea. Actually, when you're talking about taxes, people are happy to give you their fees. So I thought it was very interesting. The conversation, I believe in the past I've actually talked to a few of these people about it, maybe a year or two ago. It kind of went over the head, so I explained again what it was, explained again why the council back in the day decided that we were not going to do it because of the transparency and that we wanted to keep it, you know, a tax by a tax is still a tax. But it was really... unbelievable to me that i'm even feeling and thinking this way about it but if people aren't understanding it right they're not they're not getting why we did it or what it means things like that and a comment that came up and then i received an email today that you guys were forwarded but um about um about franchise fees and this person is actually for the Part of the reason that they're for them is that, I'm just gonna brief this, is renters start contributing directly. So a large share of our population doesn't pay property taxes, but pays for electricity, gas, cable, regardless of you being a homeowner or not. So it spreads the cost of city services more fairly. Everyone who benefits from city infrastructure services contributes to its funding, not just property owning share of residents. runs, who pays into the system, it means we're not forced to keep raising rates on the same subset of residents to cover rising costs. So I had not thought about it that way. I thought that was a very interesting take on it. Again, I'm just throwing it out there for the council to kind of consider that because it was something I had, it didn't cross my mind before to say, oh wait, so this would actually touch anybody who lives in the city of Carver rather than just the actual home property owner.

I think I remember that from 2020 because it's not only residents, it's the school will have to pay because they are, for the most part, tax exempt. It's everyone. So it's looked at as more equitable, if you will. I worry. So I hear you and I don't want to push you off, but I really want to get to this budget issue. I'm hearing that there may be an appetite to discuss franchise fees. i feel like this is something that maybe might be something that's good for like q1 of next year because i don't know and brent like is there any scenario there's like public hearings

to get this done by 1 1 27. yeah it's not possible I mean certainly a topic that could be um introduced as part of strategic planning effort in early uh 2027 but just looking back on what was done the last time it was discussed publicly there's just an amount of engagement and connection with private utility providers that would be needed to kind of get this thing ready to have a legitimate conversation on so okay so i'm not shutting you down but i think we need to as they say put a pin in this well does it impact though how we look at

these numbers for 2028 through 2030. I mean, it kind of does. So it is an important decision if we're going to align ourselves with our neighboring communities. It looks like Waconia is just about to do that. And I, you know, in the time I've been here, I believe there is no perceived benefit. We are compared to our neighbors. People don't get it. They don't internalize it. It's a really valid point that not everybody contributes. If we move to that, everyone contributes. So we make the assumption that we are going to move to franchise fees. Maybe that impacts our decision on this.

It does. I'm going to, like, where my head is at, but I want to warn you is, like, I think this needs the process where we need the public feedback, and I think we would all agree on that. We want to hear from our neighbors and our residents about this. I definitely see the hunger to have this discussion, but I'm really uncomfortable right now saying, yeah, let's do it. This is a vacuum, and I don't think that that's right, that we make that decision right here tonight. I think we can make that decision right here tonight, that this is something that we explore more and we do a robust public engagement on next year, but I think we need to hear from folks.

Okay.

You're not feeling that same way?

Well, I can't help but let it weigh weigh out my opinion about 28, 29, and 30. But yes, I agree that it's a community discussion.

Well, and I think... I see the long game. I 100% understand, but tonight what we're deciding is 27. Fair enough.

We'll decide on 27.

We could decide right here now that this is something that we want to talk about in Q1, and I think that that's what I'm hearing, although I count two. You're nodding yes. Yes. Okay. So we're good.

Is there timing? Let's say we were to do this. So it would end up coming into play in 2028? at the earliest or can you do like halfway through the year? Does it have to be on a fiscal year?

Yeah, just don't have the information to give you a credible answer. We can do that work, just don't have it prepared.

The reason I'm asking is because if If it can go in time through the fiscal year, then we don't have to wait until Q1 to talk about it either. We can start conversations in this year and then look at it for... Obviously, we know it's not going to be ready on January 1st of 27, but is there a reason to push it off to Q1 if it's something where we can start talking about it now and maybe... the second quarter or third quarter, whatever it looks like, implement it if that's the way the council.

There's part of me that feels like we should focus on public services and do that and then talk about franchise fees in terms of like queuing things up. Why can't we do them all? I don't understand. I just don't understand the weight. It feels like a real big ask of our community all at once.

Well, this would just be getting prepared to get into Q1 because if we start in Q1, that's where we like... Maybe we're saying the same thing. Okay. Like we're ready, but we...

kind of launch. Launching Q1.

Yeah. Okay. That was more sense. I thought you were waiting, like, push it all the way off. No, no, no.

We're telling you now, don't think about it.

Okay, that's what I was hearing. No, I think we're saying the same thing.

Okay. Okay. Again, like, I don't mean to shut it down, but I really would like to get this hammered out. I think... with that understanding that this is and i'm gonna i'll be the first one to go around and kind of say my preference i would like to continue with column a um understanding that that is the do not exceed number and that it would give us an opportunity to hear from the community where you want to go next um i my first choice would be column b um so column b just

To be clear, is the latter strategy of spreading it out? Correct. And the consequence is?

I would say the consequence is a variable at this point. So if you move to that $350,000 in 2028, you'd be levying $500,000 additional to the $350,000. I would put the caveat on, on that is by the time we roll around to the 2020 budget, we'll have a better number for public services and that 1.5 million fingers crossed, will be less. So it's a moving target, if you will, right now. But the, I would say the consequences, the less you do in any one year creates an opportunity to have to do more in a future year. We just don't know what that amount is today.

I don't like the ambiguity of that. So I'm really happy that the work that was done got us down another couple of percent. And again, it's the highest it can be. But with that kind of ambiguity as to what the consequence might be of that cut, I'm going to stick with A.

I am C. I think we are looking at a lot of budget constraints from our residents, right? And I'm talking about just city, like people's own personal finances and trying to live in the city of Carver. I mean, we received, there was a comment, maybe it was actually in your Facebook, I don't remember, something about I paid $600 a year when I first moved to Carver and now I'm paying that a month. Great. That is, yes, we're growing. That's big. Those are big dollar amounts for people who may have bought a home thinking, okay, this is moderate, modest. This is what I can afford and are getting taxed out of our city. And especially as people get older and become on fixed incomes who aren't ready to go into an assisted living, but can't afford to stay in their own home anymore. When I'm looking at C as compared to A, if you're looking at the 600,000, that's a hundred dollars a year. I mean, with everything that's going up again, everything is pennies and it adds to the bucket, right? Everything is adding up the bucket. 16.84 is a huge number still. 18.92 probably gave me a heart attack, but 16.84 is still really high. I think we have to make really hard choices right now. The economy is the way it is, and people are struggling out there. And I don't pretend to know what everyone's finances are, but I've heard from enough people around the community, and not just Carver taxes, but just the cost of living of everything. And for me, I have to go with C. I have to do what I can at this point for the residents of Carver to pay less per year if we can do that. And I know it takes things out and it's hard, but sometimes there's hard things that we have to make choices on.

I am also in column C. I, like I said, I would be for column D, but I understand that I'm out putted on that. So, or whatever Christy said.

All right, Lori, if you had to choose A or C, where are you at? Understanding that this is the highest and it will only go down.

The reason I will bid C, but also I still was very interested in D, the thing, the difference between the recreational program, the reason I wouldn't advocate for cutting that now is we don't have enough time to do a real long-term strategy, just like with franchise fees. But otherwise, I would want that looked at again, but we need to give enough time to see what would replace it and have a long-term strategy. So being that I was still, you know, balancing what's good for the city and the residents, I still was in favor of D, except for not having enough time to do it right for the public or for the recreational facilities. I definitely am C. You know you said B the first time around, right? I said B as in boy. The first time. Yes. But I wasn't also that far off from D. The only reason I didn't pick D was the not having enough time to do it right. The partial CIP freeze is hard in that ambiguity. So I really wasn't. That was kind of maybe, maybe not. So I guess that's more a soft. But I definitely see the benefit for us of doing the ladder strategy.

Okay, if you're talking about the ambiguity that Eric was talking about, he was talking about the ladder strategy and not the CIP briefs.

So I just, I guess for that one, that one's more, for me, that one has more ambiguity.

Are you willing to go up or down, Maureen? C, C as in can, yeah, yes.

I have some further commentary.

Same. You can go first.

I'm really worried about this direction. Homeowner's insurance goes up double digits every year, far more than my taxes do. Homeowner's insurance, car insurance, the price of gas, the price of everything is skyrocketing. What we're saying is... We're going to save you and save you $100 a year, but we're going to impact your quality of life, the reason you chose to live in Carver. People made the decision to be here because we do a lot of things right. that make people want to live here. Quality of the services we provide. We just decided it's worth having the Chaska Community Center because so many people like and depend on that service. That's a reason they live here. We are not going to save anybody living in Carver where they can or can't. with $100 a year, because again, all of those other expenses dramatically exceed that. This is, yeah, it's $100, but it is our responsibility to provide and maintain the reason you want to live in Carver, the quality of life. I think we sacrifice too much for for optics. I think all it looks like we're doing is helping a little bit when it's really a lot of those other things that impacts what your cost of living is. The school levies impact what it costs to live in Carver more than the taxes do. So I think it is a mistake to sacrifice all of those things, all the momentum we have in preparing for the future, having money to buy the vehicles we need when we need them, having the money to fix the roads and keep up with that. If we're going to make really hard decisions, Okay, then let's cut the Chatham Community Center because that's $100,000. I don't think it's worth putting the city at risk in column C or D. That's my opinion.

I agree with everything you just said. I'm also worried this will be my 10th budget season along with yours. And I feel like every single year there has been an October, November, early December surprise where something happens where health insurance comes back off kilter and more than we had anticipated. If something goes down, and Brent has one of those calls with me, I'm like, how am I gonna pay for this? I think it's really short-sighted to go down to C at this point in the year and at this point in the process. You cited that the difference between A and C is $100 and it is on a $600,000 home. I don't know that any of us live in $600,000 homes and that's not what we need to consider. However, like that's a really expensive house and that's the upper level of homes in the city of Carver. I think I would like to see us at the lowest at this point I'll negotiate and agree on B at the lowest because again like to what Eric says we've had our strategic plan we've worked really hard to have this direction where we have money so that we don't have to bond every time we need a new command vehicle and that every time we need a new lawnmower, every time we need to mill and overlay a street, we have this in a plan and we're keeping to the plan. It scares me that we're going to get off track on this.

You know, planning's great. It's also throwing a dart at the wall, right? So we don't ever exactly know, right? That's what strategic planning is. You're doing your best to look into the crystal ball of the future. Most of the new homes that are coming into Carver are We're looking at over $500,000. You'll be lucky to find one in Carver, and it's brand new. It's under 500. And I get what you're saying about, oh, it's just $100, but everything is just $100. And I don't think for me to look at the residents and say, yep, we're fine with this percentage. We're just... I think it is good for us to be fiscally responsible with our residents' money. I'm not saying that Eric and Courtney, that because you want to hire around, that you're not trying to be fiscally responsible. That's not what I'm saying. But, and I get Eric too, we're like, this is kind of optics of the percentage numbers. But for me, I just, I feel that it is my duty as a representative of the people that I'm in contact with in the city of Carver to bring this down. And again, I, I, I appreciate what you're saying though, about the fact that we're going for one level. We can always bring it down. we don't know what health insurance is going to come back at, what other variables could we, what are you, I mean, if we're going to look into that crystal ball, what's another variable that we'd be waiting for besides the health insurance?

It's not the waiting for, it's the stuff that's popped up. I remember, you know, a well going down one year and trying to figure out that's big money when we need new pumps for those kinds of things. I'm just trying to think of some of the other surprises. I just, again, I think it's more responsible. We can horse trade, but I don't want to go down. I think it's irresponsible to go down any further than B because if we get to C, that feels like the basement to me. And let's say something happens. Let's say health insurance comes in at more than the 15% that we're counting on it. Then what are we going to cut? Cause we're really kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel here. I also think like if we're cutting all of these in year one, You've seen, this is kind of a three year strategy. So what do we cut next year when it comes in high? We deliberately decided to kind of flatten the curve so that there wouldn't be a huge jump. And now I think we're leading ourselves more susceptible to a bigger jump in 28 and potentially 29 as well.

I can compromise at B. It's not, again, I think it leaves some ambiguity there, but It gets us down to sub 15. It's another almost two points.

And again, this is the not to exceed number. So I'm looking for one more person, hopefully two more, hopefully three more to horse trade with me and to say, yes, at the end of September, the number that we're going to use to inform voters to get their feedback, to have them opine with us, is going to be 14.99 option B.

We three are between a lot of talking. Do you guys have anything else too?

I, no, I can't, I can't go to B. Yes, it's $100. It was $100 last year, and it was $100 the year before that. And it's not just us, it's everybody. And yes, things go up higher than what we do.

Far more than that. Your insurance would have hundreds of dollars.

I understand. But I am of the opinion that we are not allowed to spend more just because everybody else is spending more. We have to be responsible with what we have. Um, and I, the residents that I have talked to are very concerned about how, how high our number is going up. Um, and as is my family and, um, you know, yeah, it's a hundred dollars on a $600,000 house, but you know, for my family, that's a hundred dollars is a lot. It means a lot to my family, even that a hundred dollars. So.

Okay, so again, we'll take Kayla out of the equation. And I'm looking, Christy and Lori, for your support on B. Because again, I think we're shaking the dice of what happens between now and December. Again, there's a bingo card and somebody has, I don't know how many times will she say, this is as high as we can go. Like this is, it will go no higher than this. And we can absolutely continue this conversation throughout the fall and winter, early winter. but I would like to see us at E. So I was at E, then I was at C. So it feels like not a large stretch for you to go back to B.

But I also really just want to approach it with based on the best decision we can make based on what we know for 2027. Hindsight, you know, we might look in a year or two years from now and wish we went one way far or one way or the other if we're so heavily concerned on that percentage. I feel like that's just because we can easily, a metric for us to easily be measured is by the levy increase.

And I just don't want- To be clear, that's not a number that I, there's not one resident that's gonna say, oh, it's 14, at least it wasn't 15. I don't think we should get too hung up on the percentage.

I wish it was that way. But I think a lot of people measure us as, you know, how much percentage did it go up in the other year? Yes, but anything that's double digits is going to be dead on paper. So to move, so that we can move along in these small decisions that lead up to a big decision, I would go back to B.

Do you want to join the B train? I do not want to join the B train. I'll stay on the C train. Okay. With that, and understanding that we're not all the way there, are we comfortable presenting B at our next meeting? Understanding it's probably going to be another 3-2 indication.

I think you have, right? Go ahead. I have written down the note, like our unknowns. I think is the health insurance. Are there any other unknowns that other than that we know we're having a two-headed billy goat or a well going out that we for a fire truck getting totaled? Yeah, there's known unknowns. Based on what we know right now, for me that's the area where we don't know how.

I would say the related to health insurance is we have a program where we have enrollment during the fall as well and so not only is it the premium increase but employees have the option to take the city's insurance or opt out and so you're susceptible to someone who's opted out opting back in and so our insurance represents who's on insurance this year it doesn't plan for people opting back in so you can have an employee that can have up to maybe twenty thousand dollars of health insurance costs It typically doesn't happen, but that's, I would say, the only area that you have to consider. We could certainly present or have two resolutions, B and C, and the council could choose that for your September 21st meeting as well. The drawback to that is we wouldn't then be in a position to, like, share, like, but is being presented as like one option and are like pre-agenda items. And I don't know how significant that is for you.

For me, I wouldn't need that. It would be more helpful to know if worst case scenario, these are some things that maybe we would cut. But I don't want to open up that can of worms of like, okay, then why don't we cut them now?

Well, typically I would say that, kind of borrowing from the phrase before, that's a little bit of a moving target. It depends on where that employee, how their position is funded. So you could have an employee that has maybe 90% of their wages from enterprise funds, so then that's... not as big a hit, but if it would be 90% to the general fund, then you have to do maneuvering. I think in most cases, I would say if I was to recommend a target and it has the biggest amount of challenge to it in the future is the it's always eaten into the way future debt so much the debt service ladder is like the one that impacts the least but it's eventually like it's like a credit card it's gonna come back you're gonna have to make that payment and thinking about what kind of payment that could be in 2029 with no kind of immersion into that is NOT ADL.

IF I COULD ADD TO THAT. I THINK NOT KNOWING WHAT, IF COUNCIL IS COMMITTED TO THE PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING, IF THE COMMUNITY IS COMMITTED TO THE PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING IN THE FUTURE, WHAT BRENT IS SAYING IS THERE COULD BE UPWARDS, YOU KNOW, A MILLION DOLLAR DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT COMING ONLINE IN THREE YEARS. you know, planning for that could look like going from a, you know, 46% tax rate to a 56% tax rate if we don't plan accordingly. I don't know what that looks like. If you didn't feather it in, I guess you could say, But along with the debt levy, we also are growing. So that's what makes it so difficult. But I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

But that's something too, like between now and when we set the levy, we're going to be hearing from Northland with the 10-year plan, right? So we will be able to plug in. Yes. Let's use B for... just ease, and then we'll be able to see where we anticipate, where they anticipate we'll be going with tax rates. Yes. In the next few years. Yes.

Well, Courtney, I think you have your three Bs. And it is our highest not to exceed. So, I mean, at this point, there's three that wins over two, right? You don't want to talk about it another time? I don't. I don't. So I think that... I guess if we're all good, then we'll move forward with these.

They do not exceed. I just always want to make sure that everybody feels heard. I will also never argue to talk about this 10 minutes when I was done, perhaps 10 minutes ago. I think the direction that we are giving is that we share the preliminary budget in two weeks with just option B in there. that I'm anticipating will pass on the 3-2 vote.

Because I think, again, we are waiting on the health insurance. This is the do not exceed number. That doesn't mean that, and I'm not going to speak for Kayla, but it doesn't mean for myself that I won't be looking at working towards C, depending what comes in for numbers. But here we go.

But what I'm saying with the Northland piece, too, is we'll have a lot more information to kind of educate. That crystal ball will get a little less blurry in between now and December as well. Okay, thank you guys for the conversation. I appreciate that. I appreciate those of you who were willing to negotiate and bend on your original thoughts, especially. You're not welcome.

To be clear, you were in that group.

Okay, we have city managers report next.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and Council. So we had talked a few months ago about city hall closure and moving to remote services to help facilitate some overhead electrical work that needs to be done with the certified levee project. Based on Excel's availability, that needs to move to Monday, October 12th and 13th. So Brenda Good is coordinating kind of the remote services piece to that. We're also going to move the listening session for the public services facility to Thursday the 15th. We usually talked about that earlier in the week. But we want to make sure that we can record those listening sessions and so alternative sites really aren't an option for that. So I just wanted to, I sent out a meeting update, just wanted to get that on your calendars.

Is that going to be in lieu of the Planning Commission meeting that's scheduled for that night?

The Planning Commission meeting.

Is it the next week? No. Do I have it wrong on my calendar? We bumped it up a week for it to be cognizant of MEA. Oh, hi.

So then that makes it the same night then?

No. It was supposed to be October 15th. I bumped the planning commission to October 8th. Okay. Never mind.

Wait, is October 15th MEA?

Yes. Yes. Okay. We have two listening sessions. Okay. So if people, not everyone leaves for that, and if people can't make it, come to the November session. Are you okay with that? Yeah. Aaron, can you give an update on the street maintenance project?

Yep, so Mount Hope Road got bare course pavement last week so that the majority of that project is completed for that phase. We are going to be taking this week off for steamboat days so the contractor is not going to be doing anything in the Carver Bluffs. This week that would impact you know, garage sales or any of those sorts of events that might be happening. They will be moving back in next week to do the reclamation of the streets that need reclamation work done. So we'll be getting notice sent out to all the residents here probably Thursday this week in anticipation for those construction activities to come starting next week again. Then, so they'll be reclaiming the street, getting the access reclamation base material pulled off. And then we already did the concrete spot repair work, so it'll be a lot quicker turnaround from when they reclaim to when they'll be able to get the base course pavement on the road again. So we'd expect it to be about a week time frame versus multiple weeks like happened on the monohull portion of the project. So any questions? Like a week? That's great. Yup. Yup. Okay. So that's, and then there is mill and overlay on some of the streets as well. So the contractor is planning to use a milling machine to take some of the extra base material out and he might try to get the milling done at the same time on the side streets, um, in one operation. So I don't have the final details on that yet. He's working that out, but. We'll be making sure to notice any of the impacted residents that would be on the mill and overlay streets before we get in there with the milling machine.

Then a reminder at your October 5th work session, good segue from the previous discussion, draft the 10-year financial plan. Jessica Green will be out from Northland to help facilitate that conversation. We got a first draft late last week and are working on changes and updates to kind of their rough draft, if you will. A reminder, the fire department open house is Tuesday, October 6th. And we're going to, in addition to kind of the normal festivities, we're going to have a table for the public services facility project. And then Erin Smith is hosting a 2050 comprehensive plan table.

Do you post a quorum notice for that? Yes. Yes.

Thank you. The district has submitted their concept plan for their transportation center off of Johnson and Carver Parkway. That's going to hit the September Planning Commission meeting. A reminder that Rick Larkin with Beacon Safety Services will be out at your September 21st work session. We've been working on our emergency operations plan for close to a year now, and we want to integrate the council into that discussion and give you a line of sight to how that's coming along. So Rick's going to be out here on the 21st. A reminder that we're back to regular City Hall hours after Labor Day, so 8 to 4 30 Monday through Friday. Erin Smith has an update on the Great River Greening project at Riverside Park.

So we are working with Great River Greening again. We did work with them in Creekside. Really fantastic group to work with. They made the process for us really easy. So for the Riverside Park project, it's just over $100,000 of investment of returning some mowed manicured lawn to some native spaces, opportunity for some pollinator paths, birding, butterflying, all such things. I apologize. We were a little off kilter with our known schedule with Great River greening. So we let Riverside go a little bit wild before we figured out that that was not the best approach. So Andrew's team got in there and did some maintenance on it. We'll start with Great River Greening Spring 2027. The contract with them will end December 31st, 2029. I know part of the Creekside project, we were all really excited about a volunteer event, but then Uponor, the twins, came in and did some of that work, but we are committed to doing a volunteer event of some plantings in Riverside as part of that project.

Do we have control about what time it is? Because I'm thinking, like, generally if we want community involvement, like, Saturday morning or something, like...

I think so. Like, I don't think they're prescriptive about it. Okay. I could ask them. Okay.

Because I would probably press to have it, like, ideally on the weekend.

Yeah. Ideally night. When's the archery range been back there?

I think it's there.

It is there? No?

Okay.

Then I just want to give a shout out to Morgan and Jacobs with the Edith Ann Award.

We're in his fountain in that picture.

at his invite no I would say at his insistence congratulations to Morgan anyone who's downtown on any type of regular basis sees Morgan working there quite a bit so he does a wonderful job with his yard and then finally The council has talked about kind of giving people a better line of sight to kind of public services building and getting ready for the open house and give Andrew and his team a lot of credit. They put this short little video together that will be playing at the open house. Before I get started, does the director want to make any comments?

He appears to have very little faith in his work, but I have high hopes.

It's better with volume. You'll have to do without the volume. It's a groovy track. Who's job did you use?

Paul. I see.

Kind of the initiative here is to give people kind of a real, a better understanding of how the space is used and some of the challenges with the existing space. With the kind of the space needs that we have during the open house, we can do some of this, but we still have to keep space open for people to kind of walk around and do their thing in that space as well.

Anything you want to add, Andrew? I think it highlights, you know, how much stuff we have and how much is outside. That's, you know, after Paul took the shots inside, then he moved outside. So that's how much stuff is outside. And that's not counting the PU building or Lyons. So there's a significant amount of equipment that's outside. But I think having the indoor shots while people are standing in that building will be shocking to say, okay, well, this is how much, you know, it looks spacious when it's, when you're in there for the open house. But when there's, you know, four plow trucks and two loaders parked in there, it gets tight.

But that's been exactly my point, like Brent, when I've talked to you, is to keep as many vehicles in that public services building as you possibly can. I mean, I don't care that people can't walk around as much. I don't know where to put them, but... On the grass right in front between the parking stalls and JCP. People aren't going to be watching this fine, but perception is they're going to walk in there and be like, oh, well, this is open space. Like, show them how packed it is, really.

So we're also going to need space to the public service building and like great have a slam tables and they're all together i get what you're saying just i think that this accomplishes that as well that's all i have thank you right video looks great thank you guys well done um console requests anybody

I'll be remote for that October 15th. 15th. 15th. Yes, that's good. The listening session? Nope. The, hold on, just everyone, hold on. Where's your numbers? 24. 17. Brent's preview. The, which is the meeting here? Oh my gosh, now what am I? I am not an Apple user.

It's the 5th or the 19th?

It is going to be the 5th. Thank you, Erin. You're welcome.

so at first i'll be meaning to be remote okay um if there's nothing else i'm going to entertain a motion to adjourn so a motion a second and a second all those in favor say aye aye opposed