City Commission - Regular Meeting

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2026 COMMISSION MEETING. PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

ROLL CALL.

ARE YOU GOING TO ROLL CALL?

OR DO YOU JUST WANT ME TO DO IT?

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

Stedman? Here. Jorgensen?

Here.

Zundel? Here. Jerderick?

Here.

Sorry.

All right. Approve the order of the agenda.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Approval of the minutes from the July 20, 2026 Commission Meeting.

Motion to approve.

All right, is there a second? Second. Any other comments or questions? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. And building permits. You should have a copy in front of you.

Movely approve.

Second. We have a motion and a second.

Vote.

All right, we have a motion and a second any other questions Hearing none all those in favor. Please say aye Opposed building permits pass. All right our consent agenda items a through e Movie proof second. We have a motion and a second any questions or comments. I Do we do a roll call on the consent agenda or can we? All right, we'll turn it over to Emily for a roll call.

Erickson?

Yes.

Steadman? Yes. Jorgensen? Yes. Zundel? Yes. Juridica?

Yes. How many meetings will it take me to get in before I stop asking a question? We'll see. It's a game. We can make a board. All right, onto our regular agenda. Our first item is our public comments. We have one person who has signed up for it. Mr. David Withey. The floor is yours.

Dave Withey, 2421 McLeod Drive East. Thank you. I'm glad to see that in the budgeting process that there's being installed a long-term stability working group. Great idea. I'm glad, especially glad to see the first focus is on staffing costs since they make up about 56% of the total cost of the city. And also because they take up four of the six top expenses that the city has. I mean, look at the top 10. Highest is salaries. Third highest is health care. Fourth is retirement. And sixth is social security. And obviously the last three deal with the first one. So glad to see that this is happening. And I hope that there's more than just staff on this working group. But even if there aren't, I wonder if where citizens can send their suggestions to this group or to whom they should be addressed. And after that, thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you.

Thank you, David. All right, on to our second item. Public hearing and first reading of A26-5 Sandhills, ninth edition, request for subdivision approval and zone change. Lisa.

Thank you, Commission President Jerdavig and commissioners. This application was received in order to subdivide and rezone property currently owned by Sandhills, Archers and Spaulding Holdings for future industrial development. The request before you this evening is a public hearing and first reading on the rezoning. Final plat approval and second reading on the rezoning will be held at a subsequent meeting. A site plan was provided for illustrative purposes with a retention pond and manufacturing facility shown on proposed lots two and three. Proposed lot one will remain zoned agricultural for the archery facility. Access to the proposed development in Sandhills Archery will be via Fourth Avenue Northwest. Several agreements were included within your packet. These will accompany the plat during final plat approval and second reading on the rezoning at a future date. Legal notices were published in the forum. Property owners within 150 feet were notified, as were applicable agencies and departments. No comments were received. The request before you again is a public hearing and first reading on the rezoning. I'm available to answer any questions.

Are there any questions before we open the public hearing?

All right, we will open the public hearing.

Is there anybody who would like to make a comment? Once again, would anybody like to make a comment on this topic? And for the third and final time, is anybody interested in making a comment? All right, hearing no comments, we will close the public hearing.

I move that we approve.

We have a motion.

I'll second.

We have a second. Any additional comments or questions? If there are none, we'll turn it over for a roll call.

Erickson?

Yes.

Steadman? Yes. Jorgenson? Yes. Zundel? Yes. Jarderbeck?

Yes.

all right item number three second reading of a 26-9 growth area plan consideration of approval dan hansen thank you commissioner president commissioners um in front of you is the packet for the second reading of the ordinance adopting the west fargo growth area plan uh this was the first reading was at our last commission meeting and there was a detailed presentation done by HKGI to explain a lot of what was going on with that plan. I know we've had some informational meetings and public outreach stakeholder meetings throughout the process. This is something that's been going on for roughly about 18 months now coming to a head with this second reading. Nothing has changed from the first reading and I would be here to entertain any questions.

Are there any questions? I was just going to say, you look like you have a question, Commissioner Erickson.

Thank you, Mayor. I always have a question. Dan, I just wanted to thank you for coming up and giving us the second round on this. Thank you.

Yep, absolutely. And if I could also follow up. At the first reading, there was a number of people from the skydiving club with respect to the airport. Aaron Nelson did attend an airport meeting. And he did have some discussions with them. They talked about a few things that they'd like to do as far as creating an airport. their own airport zone uh... eventually uh... when we get into district rezoning type of thing uh... in the future and then also they talked about the future rerouting of possible rerouting of nineteenth avenue for a potential runway expansion talked about opportunities with the lagoon area and also to keep cognizant that there are some height restrictions around uh... airports when we do get into the reconstruction and development of the lagoon areas Per Aaron's email to me, those were the highlights of the things that were discussed, but it was a very productive meeting, so I just did want to let you know that there was follow-up with the airport authority after that meeting. All right, that's great to hear.

I have two questions. Could you send me that email? I missed that board meeting.

The email from? Aaron. Oh, okay, yeah, absolutely. I'll forward that to you.

Second, what's our next step?

Next step right now with tonight we would be adopting it so it would be in place. There is a section in the growth area master plan for what are the next steps, what are some things that we do. The lowest hanging fruit that is out there is the lagoon redevelopment and so that is something that we're looking towards moving forward with. One of the things that we've done is we've met with a site selector that is basically somebody that was in town for the Greater EDC, I believe, is why they were in town. But they were basically in town to say, here is what my clients are looking for when we're looking for an overall large site to develop, to be able to get the environmental done on it, to get the documentation, the geotech work, all of those different things in place. So we have... REACHED OUT TO MORE ENGINEERING FOR A TASK ORDER TO HELP US GET TO THAT POINT. THAT WOULD BE COMING IN FRONT OF YOU FOR PERMISSION TO MOVE FORWARD AT A FUTURE COMMISSION DATE. BASICALLY THAT JUST GETS US READY SO THAT WAY WHEN WE DO ADVERTISE POTENTIALLY NATIONALLY FOR DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND GIVE US THEIR IDEAS OF HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP IT, THEN WE WOULD BE READY FOR IT. A COUPLE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THAT MEETING WAS THAT They were very much in favor of the city retaining ownership of the properties when it goes to development. When there's larger companies out there that are looking for large sites to develop, they much more prefer working with the city than a private developer on those. Because a lot of times our goals align with each other where we're interested in getting a really good business in there that provides jobs and tax base. Whereas a developer's goal is to make as much money as he can selling the land. So there was that. And then also they gave us some of the different things that they look for as far as documents to be ready. And those things were provided in the scope. And again, Moore Engineering has helped us with the decommissioning of our lagoons. They've helped us with our permitting through the Corps. For dealing with portions of the lagoons that are adjacent to the Cheyenne diversion right now So they have active knowledge of the site and have already been working in the past for us on it So it made sense for them to help us get to that next step and they do have a very robust Environmental team that can help us with that too.

So thanks for a very clear commentary. Yep, absolutely Any other comments or questions? I motion we approve.

All right, we have a motion. Second. And a second. Any other comments? Hearing none, Emily?

Erickson?

Yes.

Stedman? Yes. Jorgensen? Yes. Zundel? Yes. Drudovic?

Yes. All right, motion passes. Item number four, 2026, asphalt rejuvenation treatment. Dan Hanson.

Thank you, Ken, Commissioner President and commissioners. In front of you is a project that we're looking to create, project number 2307, to accept the quote and authorize the city staff to purchase some quarter materials. Basically what this is, is it's a spray-on rejuvenation, What this is is very similar to a crack seal, or not a crack seal, but a chip seal that you would see after a new roadway gets either paved new or milled and overlaid, leaving a new asphalt surface. A lot of times you will see the next year is followed up with a chip seal, and that's part of creating a layer on the top of the new asphalt that can weather and take the brunt of the initial degradation of the roadway. Instead of the chip seal, engineering staff has been researching what's called basically a spray on rejuvenators. It's not, it doesn't have the rock in it. You can spray it down and it's ready to go and be driven on within a half an hour. And it is a lower cost alternative to the chip seals. The other thing is, is it can be applied multiple times. Whereas usually if you do a chip seal every five to seven years, the second time that you're putting that chip seal on it, you're putting it on a former chip seal. And a lot of times if you've seen around town, the second layer of chip seal doesn't always bond to the first one. And then you get pieces of it that basically shave off during the winter, during snowplow operations, creating potholes and things of that nature. What it does is, by spraying the spray on rejuvenation, is it does, through some studies that were done through the Minnesota Department of Transportation, for example, they did an exhaustive It was a three-year study that they did on 12 different asphalt rejuvenators because there's lots of different manufacturers of this product. And what they did find is their conclusion was that all 12 effectively slowed the aging of the asphalt pavements. And what it does is, again, it just gives a superficial layer on top of the new asphalt to wear out sooner instead of the actual roadway wearing out sooner. And in doing so, you don't have to put that chip seal on at least until after you've applied this twice. So in essence, we're looking at, what the study mentioned was it would estimate that it would extend the life cycle of our roadways five to seven years. Conservatively, we put in this, cover letter, a five-year extension. So we, before just jumping into it, we did, most of it gets credit to Paul Berwick, our assistant city engineer who did a lot of the research on it, but he did reach out to a number of cities who are using it. For example, there's There is a city in Washington that uses it. I'm sorry, Medford, Oregon. He talked to their retired public works director who had been using it. And then also Coon Rapids city engineer. They use this and have been using this for over 10 years. And they absolutely love it. And they continue to do it to the point where they no longer use the chip seals because they've been using this. So we did request quotes. We did get quotes from several different... different companies. They don't all supply the same product, obviously. But the one that supplies the product that is the lowest bid, it was in the amount of $85,800. The highest bid that we got was $173,774.20. So we would recommend going with the lowest in the amount of $85,800. We did call for reference. and to find out if there's, you know, who has been using their product. An example of that, the city of Woodbury has been using it for about 18 years now and they're currently spraying 1.5 million square yards of their city streets with this and they very much like it and continue to use it. And right now there's currently 36 cities in the metro area also using the product. So it's a product, the spray-on rejuvenators have been around for decades. So it's not a new technology, however it is something new to this area. Right now there isn't to my knowledge, in North Dakota City that is spraying it, but there are multiple Minnesota cities that are spraying it. And we've not been able to find anybody that doesn't want to continue using it and feel it has saved money based off of the extension of the life cycle of the roadway. So where you would see this installation be applied by a contractor, would be on the new asphalt that was overlaid by the Public Works Department under the project 2290. Next year we would intend to apply it to the Westwood neighborhood and also the two mill and overlay projects that are currently being installed or just finishing being installed by Northern Improvement and we would like to implement this into our pavement asphalt pavement management program moving forward. It is a cheaper cost than the chip seal and it does much of the same of what you would want out of the chip seal. So that's a little bit of a background on it and the research that we've done, but I'd be interested if there's any other questions, I'm here to answer that.

I guess I'll ask, maybe it's just repeating back, but I mean, so we expect this product to not only extend the life of the asphalt, but also it's not necessarily a, an additional cost because it's going to be, you know, it's going to lower the cost in the chip seal piece of it, right?

We're not going to do that as... Yeah, where you really realize the cost savings is extending the life cycle of a roadway, for one thing. And then also where we haven't been doing much for chip seals in the past for a number of years, we are working on the current 2026 CIP that actually would be released here in the next month or two. And that CIP will go through 2031. On that CIP, we did have half a million dollars per year in chip seals. This is a chance for us to take a look and see if this product is actually able to do what it says and what it's been performing in other areas. And even though those are labeled as chip seals, moving forward, we would not be bringing forth a chip seal project. We would be bringing forward a cheaper spray-on rejuvenation project. In essence, that would do the same thing. guess a little more context is how a road deteriorates initially is when it when you see a brand new asphalt road you don't see any rocks in it the oil and the rocks are pretty much commingled and then over the first say five years generally speaking whether it's deterioration because of sunlight deterioration because of additives that you put on the roadway for we don't use salt, but I mean just the de-icing materials that we have, and wear and tear on the roadway, you'll see that the, eventually you'll see an asphalt road where you see more rocks than you see the oil. So what's deteriorating in that roadway is the oil between the rocks. This provides oil to deteriorate before it hits the surface that was just paved, and that's what really helps extend the life cycle of the roadway by preventing those microfissures that eventually can potentially turn into cracks, potholes, or just deterioration of your roadways.

Seems like a no-brainer. I'm just curious. We live in Minnesota. It's cold, too. I'm just curious. Have they done any studies to see if in the winter... that that surface is slippier than the crack seal or not doing that?

I'm not aware. They could have. I am just not aware. I could look and see.

I would think in Minnesota they probably, in Woodbury, it's got to be as cold as we are.

Yeah, Minnesota, generally speaking, it's also a northern climate that gets lots of ice and things like that.

Any other questions?

What I will say is there's also like fog seals that you put on roadways that are a similar type of thing. Those have been performed throughout our state as well. I don't think that there's anything that is to worry about as far as the slipperiness of the roadways with it.

It'll be interesting to keep track of it though as we go forward and see if we get the longevity. We may not all be here, but somebody will be to see if it actually works. But I'll make a motion to approve.

All right, we have a motion. Second. Second. Any further questions or comments?

Mayor, I do have one question for Dan. Dan, you said that Coon Rapids was using this for the last decade, it sounds like?

Yeah, they've used it for over at least 10 years, is what I was told.

Do you, is this the first time that we've used this material, the reclamite?

This is the first time that we will be using it. And I know Fargo has talked about using it, but they haven't moved towards it yet. But they'll probably be watching us.

Definitely. Leave the pack. This will be probably continuous use moving forward as long as this turns out?

That's our goal, is to implement this. I wouldn't say just this one. Each year we would look to see who bids the cheapest, because according to the MnDOT study, which again, I can get you a link to the study if you want some good reading material in the evening. But it was over 100 pages long. It was actually field tested. They cut cores, brought it into a lab, over the course of three years, checked a number of different properties of what it's doing and compared it to core samples of asphalt that did not have it, and it performed very well against the test specimen. So given all of that, we're very confident that this is gonna perform.

Okay, last question on that, Mayor. The idea with my line of questioning is just understand, but then also the current environment that we're in with self-performing or not self-performing. Is this something, depending on how the outcome of everything happens, it turns out, is this something that could be self-performed?

It is something that could be self-performed. If we were to basically to purchase the equipment, if we wanted to apply it, would be just you basically spray it out of the back end of a tack truck, for example. You just need to get a different applicator. So it's a fairly low-cost equipment to purchase. This year, we're not looking at doing that. We're hiring a contractor just to see it get applied, learn about it next year. be brought forth, and I would assume that we probably would just bid it out for a contractor to do it as well. But again, this would be more to the level of we're not adding any structure to the pavement. This is true maintenance, just like a chip seal, crack filling, pothole repair. Those are considered maintenance. Now, again, when you take a look at the difference of hiring a contractor versus self-performing, A lot of it comes down to the competitive bidding laws. Well, it takes, obviously we're doing the entire neighborhood that we did using a contractor for $85,000. The competitive bidding laws state that anything over $250,000 needs to be bid. So as long as we're doing, say we wanted to do $100,000 worth of work for that, it's not a lot different than us putting $100,000 worth of crack seal material into roadways. If it becomes, we would have to take a look for example next year because those are two sizable mill and overlay projects plus the Westwood area. and we would have to take a look, given the prices and things like that, if we're even coming close to that competitive bidding threshold, and be cognizant of that, absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you.

You bet.

All right. Any other comments? I would just, you know, with the thorough explanation you give again, I applaud you for doing your due diligence for, I mean, such a small project, but checking in to make sure it was the right project for us.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

All right, we have a motion and a second. We will move to a roll call vote.

Erickson? Yes. Steadman? Yes. Jorgenson? Yes. Zundel? Yes. Chertovich?

Yes. All right, on to item number five, approve the preliminary budget and set public budget hearing date for Tuesday, September 8th, 2026. Dustin Scott, city administrator.

Thank you, good evening. Mayor Druvig and commissioners, it's my privilege to bring forward the preliminary budget for 2027. Got slides up here on the screen, we'll walk through those and then I'll be happy to entertain any questions. Emily, is it okay if you scroll through? Yep, thank you. So first, just recapping what we talked about at our last meeting, we are net positive across all of our major fund departments. Since the July 20th meeting, we have not changed any of our total expenses or revenues, so what we presented is still what we are bringing forward today as our preliminary budget. Following the July 20th meeting, we took the time to collect and gather all of the feedback, the questions and comments from all of the commission, and we prepared a memorandum that acts as a collective response to those COMMENTS, QUESTIONS THAT YOU'VE ASKED. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT TWO THINGS. ONE, THAT MEMO IS IN THE PACKET. AND TWO, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THEM YET. SO SOME OF THOSE THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED, WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER THOSE ITEMS FOR YOU AND WE'LL HAVE THAT IN THE COMING WEEKS. AND OF COURSE, WE'VE EVALUATED THE BUDGET IMPACTS BASED ON THE FEEDBACK AND DIRECTIVES THAT THE COMMISSION HAS GIVEN. and developed options for approving the preliminary budget, which we will get into shortly. So this slide here just summarizes the feedback that we've received. The staffing expenditures, health insurance, the deferred equipment fund, establishing a long-term stability working group, and then Obviously there's been some notable departmental changes in the budget. So again, those are the themes that came through and the responses are available in that memorandum. Commission has also given some directives through their formal action. So that has been incorporated as well. And we'll move to the next page here and just outline the impacts that you'll see on the next slide. We'll have a dollar amount to these items, but predominantly we have Reduce the general fund budget by removing the three new firefighters from the fire department budget. Adjust the COLA from three to two and a half percent. Move the city hall lease payment into the general fund. Currently it's been budgeted in the general fund reserve fund. So moving that into the general fund and then transferring the economic development sales tax dollars, The terminology here is maybe up for debate, but really kind of capturing the value that is recognized in the TIF and pilots that are currently active and using that to backfill or supplement the general fund revenues. And then last, to establish that deferred equipment fund. So this screen here, this is the preliminary budget that you saw on July 20th. We'll go to the next. And here is where now we have put an estimated value on those items that the commission have been commenting on. And again, at this point, these are optional items. It's kind of like an a la carte. The commission can decide to move forward with all of these being incorporated or just one of them. Now, the first few items are the expenditure-related items. So again, reducing... the general fund budget without, or by eliminating the three firefighters, reducing the COLA from three to two and a half percent, and then of course adding an expense to cover the lease payment. And then below that is where you'll see the additional revenue that we are estimating based on the value of the TIFs and pilots tied to the commercial incentives that are out there. So overall, it creates a strong net position $736,000. You'll see on the next slide that we have some options to address that. One option being to transfer dollars into the new deferred equipment fund. Again, it's an a la carte type situation here. You can move direct staff to move all of those dollars into that fund, move a portion. We can also make some adjustments to the revenue forecasting that we have so far. Items like forecasting franchise fee revenue. As we know, that's very seasonally dependent. If we have a harsh winter, for example, the gas and electricity gets used more, we generally will have more revenue coming in. So other revenue sources, again, that are forecasted, and there's a laundry list of them that we went through at the last meeting, but could be permit and building fees or being a little more conservative with the state aid dollars that we are estimating. So there's a host of options there. Those decisions can be made with the final budget. So I just want to make that very clear. We really don't have to make that decision tonight. Of course, we would take any direction that you want to give, but... Those are at least a few that I've identified. And again, over the coming weeks and prior to approving that final budget, we will solidify that. So the requested action tonight, again, approving the preliminary budget with all or some of those options being incorporated or approving a preliminary budget as presented on July 20th. We also need to set a date and time for the hearing on the preliminary budget. Statutorily, that has to take place between September 7th and October 7th, our next commission meeting. Well, the first commission meeting in September will end on the 8th, so we'll propose to set the hearing on that date, and then we would go from there with any additional adjustments before we bring forward the final budget, which will take place that first meeting in October. And then third is to direct staff to create that deferred equipment fund and then develop the associated policy. So those are the actions that are being requested. And we'll come back to that slide. But last slide here, Emily, is just, again, the considerations for the final budget. One comment that did come up through the budget reviews is the health insurance estimate. As you know, are forecasting a 10% increase to our rates. Now, that's not an increase to the budget from last year. That's an increase to the rates that we're paying. We, of course, are going out to the market. We currently are soliciting bids to hopefully get reduced rates. And our broker is Marsh McLennan Agency, MMA. And they are fighting to get us a lower rate, but Right now, again, we're staying with that 10% until we are directed otherwise. Nationally, we're a little concerned that 10% isn't quite enough. But again, we will have more information after we solicit the bids. Establishing a long-range financial stability working group the first meeting to take place here in August I'd proposed that the first meeting be with our leadership team and really to get organized What's the scope? What are our first two or three priorities? What do we want to focus on here? And then I we will certainly come back to the Commission with an update and then further direction on how that that group should continue to to work whether that involves commissioners or public meetings, all of that good stuff. So we will start at a staff level in August and then report back. And then finally here, as you know, the final budget really includes a lot more detail than we are currently sharing. There will be full narratives for all of our departments. All the special funds and all that other information gets incorporated, and we hope to have a draft of the final budget ready for the commission meeting in September, so. Now with that, probably jump back a slide, and I'll stand for any questions.

I'm guessing there's going to be some.

Commissioner Erickson, I'm just going to look your way. I have a good amount of questions. I don't want to monopolize the time. but I can start if you'd like.

Yeah, go for it, we'll work down the line.

Okay, Dustin, thank you very much, really appreciate it. So Commissioner Steadman and I, we just came off an election, 3% cap, general fund budget, property tax revenue, Can you explain to us, just as if we're like an average person, what the 3% cap is doing to us when we're forecasting our 27 budget in terms of numbers?

Absolutely. Yeah, I'm going to ask Emily to, well, actually, you know what? I'm going to maybe just see if I can find it quick here. The last commission meeting, we did have a slide in that presentation, which is available here in the packet.

There we go.

I don't know if you can zoom in. I'm not gonna try to do that here, but this slide really is demonstrating how do we arrive at calculating property taxes for the next year. And so as you can see by the number, in 2026, our total property tax levy was $22.7 million. Now we have to subtract out the share of specials that are tied to that before we continue working through the computation. But I'm just gonna jump down to the bottom. And what we are projecting for 2027 in property tax revenue is $22.9 million. So you can see there's, I don't know, just shy of $200,000 of an increase from last year. And what's happening in there, we have the 3% increase that we show there, the $689,000. So that's the 3% cap that is added on to the prior year tax levy. We are also able to capture the new growth. The new growth number is really established by the city assessor in their equalization report. So we get to add those two things together. And then there's also the share of specials, but there's a big red number there, a little over a million dollars. The state has historically allowed a 5% reduction in your tax bill if you pay by a certain time. Well, when that happens, which the majority of our residents take advantage of that and pay their taxes by that timeframe. So that actually creates, I'm gonna call it an offset to the property taxes that we are receiving. So when we factor that in, that's about a million dollars worth of the discount. That's why if you're looking at last year and just adding 3%, that's not quite the math. It's a little more complicated. That's why we laid it out in this slide. I don't know if that's answering your question, Commissioner, but by the number, that's what's happening with that.

Thank you very much. So is it safe to say then our budget has grown, or the net revenue we have taken in from 26 to 27, WILL BE ROUGHLY $170,000 MORE AFTER THE DISCOUNTS, AFTER EVERYTHING? IS $170,000 SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?

THAT'S THE INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.

THAT'S THE DELTA.

THAT'S THE DELTA, AND THAT IS ACROSS ALL FUNDS. SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE FIRST NOTE THERE, PROPERTY TAX CALCULATION INCLUDES THE GENERAL FUND, LIBRARY FUND, AND AIRPORT FUND. But yes, that is the delta. If the city received the 22.7 last year, it nets out to this 22.93 for 27. Thank you.

And if I can continue, Mayor. Please do. Okay, so that's 170 grand. We have a request for health insurance increases if we are going to operate under the assumption of 15 and a quarter. That's 761 grand. The COLAs, each percent of COLA is 285. We only, for general fund revenue, again, have only brought in 170. That is challenging. It's challenging to understand that math. If we do, if that's all we're bringing in roughly year over year from the general fund revenue, from property tax revenue.

Yeah, that's where I'm, yeah, thanks Emily. I do want to point, so just to clarify, the property tax revenue is 47% of the overall general fund revenue. So there are other revenue sources, more than half, that go into the general fund and help afford our general fund expenses. So yes, while the property tax revenue has a fairly small increase, there are other revenue sources, as you can see in the pie chart there, that also come in and offset or balance out our general fund expense.

OK. So my last question on this. SO THIS 47% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR THE OVERALL GENERAL FUND DOESN'T FLUCTUATE MUCH YEAR OVER YEAR. WE'RE LOOKING AT HALF OF THE GENERAL FUND BEING COMPRISED OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE, ROUGHLY.

THAT'S ROUGHLY. NOW, JUST ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER, WITH THIS USE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SALES TAX TO COME INTO THE GENERAL FUND, THAT WILL CHANGE THIS PIE CHART. AND IT WILL ACTUALLY GO INTO IT WILL EXPAND THAT GREEN SLICE FURTHER, WHICH WILL THEN REDUCE THE PROPERTY TAX SLIGHTLY. IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, I THINK RIGHT NOW WE'RE ESTIMATING $800,000. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO DO THE MATH THERE, BUT THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE IS $43 MILLION, SO AGAIN, THAT PIE CHART WOULD GET REDISTRIBUTED BASED ON THAT DIRECTIVE.

OKAY. OKAY. SO JUST TO RECAP, $170,000 NET property tax revenue, 285 per general fund COLA percentage increase, and health insurance, 15 and a quarter is roughly almost a million, or three quarters of a million. Okay. That sounds about right.

Okay. Again, one thing I'll clarify, when you compared the COLA that 285 is just into the general fund, the property tax number that we're talking about also includes library and airport funds. So it's compartmentalizing the funds, and that's where we have other tables that can show that a little better, but the gist of what you're saying is, yeah, is right. Okay, thank you.

If we're gonna go down the line. So I'm gonna go next.

Lucky me.

I see notes.

Now the question is, can I still make sense of the gibberish? So the first question that I have in regards to some of the talking about setting aside things for deferred equipment fund, what do we have still vested in the IN OUR CURRENT 2027 BUDGET FOR LARGE PURCHASES, BECAUSE I KNOW TYPICALLY I'LL USE PUBLIC WORKS, FOR EXAMPLE. THERE'S USUALLY A LARGE CHUNK OF EQUIPMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THERE. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ESTABLISHING THIS 285 WITHOUT ANYTHING ADDITIONAL, ARE WE COVERING WHAT WE NEED THROUGH 2027 SO THAT 285 IS REALLY ALMOST FOR 2028 OR THINGS THAT COME UP IN 2027 OR HOW COMFORTABLE ARE YOU WITH WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT? Does that make sense? That was a very long-winded way to say that.

I think so. Well, I'll try, and then you redirect me if I'm in the, if needed. So currently, the 2027 budget is, there is one piece of equipment that would qualify into what we're proposing to be, call it the policy for this deferred equipment fund. So that piece of equipment is sitting off to the side. It really has no It has no funding source. It has no home. It's part of the budget request, but it's sitting off to its side.

So it's not currently included?

It's not included.

In any numbers?

Nope.

And dare I ask how much that piece of equipment is?

$265,000. Yep. That sheet right there, there's a note in the bottom left corner, does not include, and they're There's other notes in the current slides too.

So I just wanted to clarify, that's like a proposed piece of equipment that should this go through kind of hitting the ground running to pay for the first piece that would go through that.

Absolutely. Yep. So the way that would work in accounting speak, if Willie, if he's back here, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but we, if we create the fund, we create the fund, we'll have to move money to it. Correct. So let's just say we moved the 265 into that fund, and now we have an expenditure of 265 that would leave that fund at a zero balance at the end of 2027. Correct. Until we decide how else will revenue go into that fund. And that could be things like proposing that each department set aside money, and that would be an easier budget to manage in terms of reducing the THE EBB AND FLOW OF ONE-TIME PURCHASES CAPTURING ANY MONEY THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS UNSPENT FROM A PRIOR YEAR. LET'S CALL THAT A SURPLUS. SO IF IN THE GENERAL FUND WE HAD A SURPLUS, POLICY COULD ESTABLISH. SO THERE'S MANY WAYS TO GET MONEY INTO THAT FUND. BUT RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY EXPENSE THAT WE CURRENTLY PROPOSE FOR 2027 IS THAT ONE $265,000 PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. AND AGAIN, WE ARE ONLY proposing at this point to use that fund for the general fund. The utility funds are not included with that. So there are some pieces of equipment and say water or sewer budgets. And that's why we build up reserves into those budgets. So that answering your question?

Yep. MY NEXT COMMENT, NOT EVEN A QUESTION, IS MORE SO, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CONCERNED THAT WE ARE ACCURATE TO THE DEGREE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO BE ACCURATE, SO OBVIOUSLY I KNOW THAT YOU AND EVERYBODY ELSE DO NOT HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL, BUT THE CONCEPT OF ADJUSTING THE REVENUE FORECAST WHERE APPLICABLE, I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S GOING ON, JUST IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE WE DON'T It's all fun and games on a paper, but if we're not accountable to what that number is on paper, or if we see opportunities where we're not being conservative in areas, or we know they're kind of straight or wrong, I think that's probably a primary thing that we should address before we do anything else. Because to me, accuracy to the best of our ability is important. So that was just going to be my comment on that. And then just a comment on the long range planning. One thing to consider or chew on is perhaps even doing a survey of the commission and also of staff even before you meet with senior directors, or maybe that's what the first meeting would be. Some of the questions that I would have for staff as we consider some of this is what their current priorities are. So obviously it's nice to have everything in a handbag and get everything, but if we have to start prioritizing things when it comes to long-term sustainability, what does that look like? Is it health insurance and maintaining a current level of service with that? And that's important for families, the retirement contribution. Is it consistency and stability in a step? So I think understanding what the current staff prioritizes, I think, is very valuable, especially because if we lose a lot of staff, that's very expensive. I think we're in a great place where we're getting a lot of continuity with staff and it shows and I want to keep the momentum going and I value them and I guess I care a lot about what they have to say. So if we have to make tough decisions, I think understanding what the staff in general prioritizes to me would be really important to make decisions from. But I also think just so you guys aren't chasing your tail in circles, probably having an understanding of either the questions we're going to ask or the data we're going to want or the things we prioritize might be a good idea as well, similar to what you do with the budget. So those were just my comments of that.

Absolutely.

Were you going to go last?

Yeah, we'll see if there's any questions left to ask.

Thank you. I actually totally agree with what Commissioner Zundel just said about asking the staff their priorities, because I may think health insurance is a priority. They might find out that it's not a priority. So I think you have to have some of that information to start. First, we talked about insurance, and I hope it's only 10%. But I work a lot in this industry with the school district and have for a long time. And across the state, as I listen to entities 10% is not where they're coming in. They're coming in closer to 18% to 20%, which is terrifying, even when they're making adjustments to their plans. But that's a real cost and a real benefit to our employees. So, again, going back, is it important to our staff? where that fits. So the second thing, the deferred maintenance, I absolutely love. I think it's important that we have that deferred maintenance. I really think there should be deferred maintenance for our buildings as well. We don't currently have that in the budget and how that looks. And to think that we're not going to have something go wrong. Right now we maybe don't have very many buildings that you own. But I think it's important that we should really be planning for both. And that takes me to the last one. We look at COLA. First of all, I know we're a people industry. I love people, and I know we have to have really good people in order to run the city as well as any business. But I also know that the cost that it takes to keep the people continues to go up. Somehow, we've got to find a way to reduce some of those costs. And I appreciate the COLA, and I understand the COLA. But I'm not sure that right now, going into budget constraints the way they are, that we should be doing even a 2.5% COLA. We should be taking the savings from maybe doing a 1% COLA this year. go back and have that subcommittee come back and say, what does it look like for next year? What does our budget look like? Are we competitive? Are we not competitive? And the dollars that we wouldn't pay to COLA should go directly into these deferred maintenance, not just for the one item we know, but for all those things that we don't know. We think that our fire trucks are fine until one breaks down and Dan goes, wait a minute, we have no money. We have to have a better reserve for that. So for me, that's gotta be a priority as well as keeping as many of our staff happy as we can. But steps in addition to COLA is not the norm, I think, for our community. I'm familiar. I said that I work with the schools. And we have steps. We do not do COLAs on top of steps. We just can't afford it. So this is something to think about that I'd rather see us do less in the COLA maybe do a 1% this year, the extra dollars that that might open up for the general fund, move that into deferred maintenance for equipment and just general maintenance to give us a fighting chance if something catastrophic happens next year that we're not fighting for, how are we going to pay for that? So just my thought. But thank you for all the detail. I know it's a lot of work to go into a budget, and I never want to presume that I know better than you do.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jorgensen, do you have any questions or comments?

Yeah, no, I'm going to piggyback on a lot of great questions and a lot of great answers. I'll start with the steps. I've never been a fan of steps. I've made that publicly clear. I don't believe people should be stepped out. You know, you work here 11 years, you don't get another raise. So what little the cost of living raise is, is all I think 19 or 20 people are getting this year. Mr. Lee did a study last fall for me, I think a year or so, and we could have 70 to 75 people stepped out, and that, you know, thanks for coming to work, you're gonna get the same pay for the next how many years, so. The coal is a little, I think we can handle that, but we need to do something different with the steps is my opinion on that. Another thing, piggybacking on the department heads, the city's looking ahead in the next five years Let's have the department heads kind of the same thing. Look ahead for the next 10 years. What are they thinking? They're not asking for a lot of equipment this year. Could they if we had a higher income budget? So let them assist in the planning. Let's all work together and keep the town as great as it is and keep it going. That's all I got.

Just a few comments from the questions everybody's asking, I think, you know, and we've all been talking about it, that 3% cap is going to be challenging as we look forward, right? To Commissioner Erickson's questions, that money is really eaten up simply with the changes in labor, you know, salary changes and so forth, let alone any other needs the city has. So I think what that really points back to me is I think the changes that you've walked through in the proposed budget based off of our feedback I think are really important. We need to be super conservative and we need to be setting some money aside for equipment potentially for buildings. I don't disagree with that because our plan next year isn't to buy a $2 million fire truck. but that need is coming our plan next year isn't to buy a half a million dollar garbage truck or snowplow but that need is coming um and if we don't set that money aside that three percent cap will become impossible for us to manage within to address those needs so it's really really important um that you know we'd be conservative with with our actions here and that we start setting that money aside so that we can deal with those ups and downs in our budget. And so I think that kind of encompasses my view on some of your guys' questions, and I would agree.

Can I just make one more comment? Because Commissioner Jorgensen, you know, and I appreciate 11 steps, and I know that we condensed it. A reminder that we condensed the steps to get people to their highest pay that they could get. in 11 years instead of, was it 18 or 20? But they also get retirement on the highest wage that they could get earlier. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an opportunity instead of doing a COLA for 20 people who might be at that step instead of all 350. Is there a way that you can do a, I'm not gonna, never say bonus, but is there something you can do with the people at the top to somehow to address some of that COLA without doing COLA for everybody? So just a thought.

I can answer that. It was looked at last year, longevity pay. City of Fargo, I believe, we kind of looked at what they had. We're trying to make it work for us, and then boom, here come the email with the 3%. Well, that was the first thing that was easiest to cut. So I just, you know, I look at people. I value people. I value all our employees here. And they come to work and they continue to grow. They continue to grow to conventions. They bring the knowledge back. They hold extreme value, teaching our younger generation. And I'll take the police and fire department as the two biggest two. They're a young department. There's going to be no room to grow up. They're going to be firefighters for a long time before they can advance up. So they're going to be stepped out and not, you know, I don't know what the average age of our fire department is, but I'm guessing it's way under 30. So not much room for turnover to go.

So does the question become then is the step system the best system for West Fargo or should you do away with steps and go back to a merit pay slash or COLA and that way you're not fighting both so then you don't have the top or the bottom and you still have a range, but... And I don't know the answer to that since I'm new to this but that's the general industry would say don't do steps then and then you might get a COLA, you might get AmeriPay or you do a hybrid of both.

And I think I mean from my personal perspective I think that's where I'm you know the task force that we're moving forward with I hope comes back with recommendations in the next six months so that next year whatever those changes are, because I think we can look at the model today and we know that it's not very sustainable and that somewhere in there we have to potentially make some tweaks. But I also don't think we want to be super quick to dramatically change something without giving it the proper consideration and research and effort. And I think that's where we're all at with it right now.

I think that goes back to what Amy had said though, is you got to talk to the staff and find out what do they value. Maybe this is what they value more than everything else. I completely would agree with you.

I did ask earlier, just so the commission is aware, we currently have 34 people on their last step. Of those 34, 20 are in PD, four in fire, five in public works, one admin, two planning and zoning, and one library. So the vast amount of those people who are stepped out are in police and fire. where again I feel like having that longevity is extremely important in those departments for a lot of the stuff that they deal with and are going on. One comment that I didn't make earlier but it reminded me as we were talking to have some of the data to make some of these decisions because I think when you look at some of the budget stuff it can be a little bit confusing without context because it's in all these different funds but if we don't have the ability to quickly run kind of a report I will use the police department as an example. There's overtime that's given in a police department. I think some of the decisions I want to make sure we're able to look at and digest is, okay, would we be doing just as much overtime if we added an employee? And at what point does adding one singular employee change the scope of that? And again, from a staff perspective, maybe they like working overtime. I know their special event overtime pay. So even when you're looking at an overtime budget and how much over we are in some of that, having an understanding that there's also a revenue source because we're getting paid for things like special event pay. So I know what we're looking at right now isn't that granular. I hope that we are able to make it that granular, especially when you have a committee of people. But an example in the staff that I would also ask when we're polling them is, do they like working overtime? Is that an important piece of their salary structure? Because I think to some people, it probably is to have that opportunity. So using that in the context of when we're choosing to add staff and when we're not, because adding staff is obviously a very large long-term cost. THAT WAS ANOTHER THING THAT JUST POPPED UP AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT.

I WILL JUST ADD ONE MORE THOUGHT. ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TO THE BUDGET TO PASS TONIGHT. From here to when we meet in September or approve the final budget in early October, we can decrease COLA between now and then if we so choose. We can't increase it from whatever we set it to tonight basically. Well, I suppose if we cut it somewhere else, we theoretically could. But just as it relates to where we set that number tonight, we can continue the conversation past this evening as to whether or not it should be decreased. FURTHER BEYOND THE TWO AND A HALF PERCENT, IF THAT'S TO BE WHERE A MOTION PUT IT AT FOR THIS EVENING. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WRITTEN IN, OR IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN STONE.

I THINK A LOT OF IT FROM THE WAY I'M UNDERSTANDING IS OBVIOUSLY WE ALL SEEM TO BE IN AGREEMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE 3% PLUS NEW GROWTH. WE ALL SEEM TO BE IN AGREEMENTS ON SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF, I THINK, FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT REALLY A PRELIMINARY BUDGET, PER SE, ANYMORE. IT'S KIND OF DECK CHAIRS AND MOVING THINGS AROUND IF THINGS, BUT AT LEAST THERE'S A DIRECTION

WE DON'T REALLY CONTROL THAT NUMBER. OTHER COMMENTS, THOUGHTS?

NOT A COMMISSIONER. ABSOLUTELY NOT. HAPPY TO WORK FOR YOU, THOUGH. I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK. I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER STEDMAN DID ASK A QUESTION IN THERE REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR THOSE THAT HAVE STEPPED OUT OF THE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE. While things are always certainly possible, I do want to point out that number one, I believe as you mentioned, the grade and step program, it's a very intentional structure that we want people to get stepped up. We want people to get to their maximum potential within a job. The COLA is independent of that. The COLA is meant to address the cost of living. And that should be, in my opinion, that should be a universal system for everybody because we all go to the store and buy the same goods and consume the same products. So as the COLA is reacting to the market, those adjustments, the grade and step is really an independent structure. And yes, people are getting steps, but again, that's by design and that's a good thing. Commissioner Jorgensen mentioned the longevity pay. That was one avenue that we could explore some additional opportunities to recognize our long-term staff. I'd love to do that, but yeah, with the property tax coming, it just, the conversation kind of, we looked into it, we had some numbers, but I'm excited to jump back into all of that discussion as this group starts convening I think first and foremost, we need to have a very in-depth review of what is our structure and why. Why do we have this structure? I would feel a lot more confident in providing you all of that information before the final budget is approved so that you're making very informed decisions. I know that Fargo uses very similar grade and step program as we do. Fargo has one little difference in that they have two or three structures depending on the service that you're in. So if you're in public safety, there's a modified structure. I think it's only five or six steps instead of the 11 that we have. But again, excited to jump into that, not only to understand what we currently do and why, but then work together and collaborate on a model that we feel is more sustainable and not to diminish the ability to retain and recruit our staff because that is a big value for us and we've seen it over the last few years. Turnover is challenging and it is also expensive. Agreed. So back to the question though, it's certainly something that is possible but I would say that would create an imbalance and one that would be difficult to sustain over time itself because we get to 2028 and we have additional people that have now stepped out, are we doing something similar where we're gonna give a certain COLA here and a certain COLA there? That's the part where it might get to be a challenge to sustain, but it is certainly a possibility.

I'm not sure that I would do COLA. I think as soon as you say COLA, it should be for everybody. You wouldn't have to, but that's why I wouldn't even put it as part of the extend the range of pay, that it would just be a one-time sort of payment to cover some of those costs, just because we know it's tough to be at the bottom, or tough to be at the top, I guess you would say. Makes it Very challenging. But I think this idea of having this conversation with your staff and all of us would be beneficial for everybody to understand. I think, and the steps, aren't the steps between 4% and 6% increases kind of in there? It's in there, yep. So for most people, 4%, not even 6%, 4%. The state, I think, gave 3% for their state employees. That step by itself, and they didn't do COLAs in addition to that either. I think we're in a different market right now, and we know that I think going forward we have to be able to afford our people, and I want our people to stay, but I also want to be able to keep them next year and the year after that and the year after that, and some of this might not be sustainable. And the last thing I want to see us happen is that we don't have dollars left over, and next year we go, we've got to let go of people.

100%.

And I think... It doesn't sound like a lot of money, but a million dollars can take you a long way next year. So that's just my thoughts. So personally for me, I'd like to see us reduce the COLA, and we don't have to do that today, but I'd rather see it at 1% or 2% than even 2 1⁄2.

Commissioner Jorgensen. The statements have been made, you know, to get the staff involved in all the places I've worked, when you get staff involved with making changes and they're part of it, they adapt it. Changes are smoother unless you throw something at them that they had no say in It's like the defense goes up right now, but if you get them involved in the changes Because they're the day-to-day people with their boots on the ground for us So they know what they want. I know what they need. Yeah, we can't always give that but we want to hear their opinions Commissioner Erickson Thanks mayor Jurdavig

Dustin, so rather than reiterate kind of what I talked about with the numbers, I thought it would be helpful just really quick to go through the potential, not the impacts. You've got a slide here that talks about the different, oh yeah, it is the potential impacts. Okay, so on the removing the three FTEs, That, this is gonna become more of like a comprehensive conversation about the opportunity cost of making these decisions. What is the opportunity cost of adding decisions, right? Or adding positions, right? And to me, I'm just gonna go down the list. The opportunity cost of adding these FTEs, I know I was already vocally opposed in the July meeting to these, is like the clear opportunity cost there is that you do add people at the expense of whether it's COLA or longevity pay or step increases or health insurance benefits, there's always an opportunity cost for that. So just on that point, I have a hard time supporting that. The COLAs, again, it's a $300,000 decision per COLA. that's tough, right? But the idea there is that you're preserving the retention of your good people already, which I prioritize. I think that that's very important. The lease payment, right? I know that there's been that policy initiative to try to move that to a material fund that's more durable, that we've been working with more regularly. So getting that changed, right? And the opportunity cost there is that there may have to be offsets from other departments in those general fund revenues. The economic sales tax, that hopefully will help offset this lease payment, right? There's opportunity cost to all of these different proposals. The equipment fund, particularly for me, and as we've been going through the numbers, THE DIFFICULTY WITH THESE LAST TWO, THREE MONTHS BEING ON THE COMMISSION IS NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE AN ACCURATE GRASP OF THE TRENDS YEAR OVER YEAR BECAUSE I THINK IN PARTICULAR THE EQUIPMENT PURCHASES VARY PER YEAR AND CAN SPIKE BUDGETS. SO YOU NEVER GET AN ACCURATE GRASP OF WHAT IS HAPPENING YEAR TO YEAR. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS THE ANTIDOTE TO THAT. SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY GRAB THE NUMBERS AND WHEN YOU'RE HAVING EQUITABLE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHETHER YOU SHOULD INCREASE COLAS ACROSS THE BOARD OR STAFF, THE FTE CONVERSATION IS VERY DIFFICULT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THESE LOOMING DEBT OBLIGATIONS OR DEFERRED MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS AND SO THE I SUPPORT So just after going through those, I support every single one of those changes. I think going down to a 2.5% COLA, well, at least for the preliminary budget, if it needs to go down any more, then we can reduce that. But truly, my thought, and I've told you before, Dustin, is I don't want to get to 2029 and have to make harder decisions. This is... I think that... When I when I was listening to House Bill 1176 go through the legislature, I was thinking all of the municipalities, all the political subs are going to have to push pause. And I feel like 27 is a push pause year for all of the employees for their benefit so that you can ascertain what the impacts are. You can put a working group together and you can put the numbers down on paper and you can have a real you can get a good grasp of what a lay of the land now in this new economic environment. So I'm ready to make a motion if... All right, I'm ready to hear it. Okay, so I would... Mayor Jernovich and commissioners, I would move to approve slide 329 of the slide deck that talks about the different impacts, but. Is that the slide that's on the screen? It's actually page eight of the actual package. Page eight. Page six. Of the agenda packet of the 352 pages, it's 329.

I'm looking on this.

Yeah, that would be, I think that that might be too low. That's the one I was looking at, the verbiage.

So up one more.

Yep, the opposite direction, I think.

You want this all option?

Yes, what page is that? Okay, Emily, you have to go up like three that says potential impacts, keep going.

Oh, I think we, didn't we just go too far? Right here.

This is the one, yep.

Oh, okay.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would move to approve the preliminary budget based on the provisions set out on this slide, slide deck four of the agenda packet. to reduce the general fund budget by removing the three FTEs in the fire department budget, adjust COLA temporarily, 3% to two and a half, move the city hall lease payment, transfer the economic development sales tax fund, and create a deferred equipment fund. I think those are all very, very important. All right, we have a motion.

I'll second.

We have a second. Any further discussion?

Mayor Jernovich, last thing on that is I think that we'll have a very good understanding after the working group fleshes out what we need to do about, and that'll give us a really good idea of what the COLA should be and what we have the capacity to absorb.

And one additional question we'll have to figure out between now and then, I would assume, is also kind of what of those factors that net position gets transferred into the equipment fund versus potentially changes in revenue forecasts.

And I would say the next time we talk, I would like to have a good once-over of feeling like we're accurate, as accurate as we can possibly be with those revenue forecasts because it doesn't really matter what it says on paper if we know that that's what it's not going to be.

So the assumption is that work is going to get done before the September meeting?

I THINK WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET BECAUSE WE'RE APPROVING A NUMBER TODAY AND WE'RE GIVING THEM THE DIRECTIVE OF BEFORE THE FINAL BUDGET HAVING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THE DECK CHAIRS WOULD GO AT THE TABLE BY MAKING SURE WE'RE DOING A REVIEW OF ANYTHING THAT WE FORECASTED. WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE?

YES, THANK YOU.

WE'RE APPROVING A NUMBER TODAY.

And just to clarify, the hearing that we'll have on September 8th, it is a hearing of what is being approved today. So anything as we move forward over the next few weeks until that hearing, there might be some changes that are proposed or being worked on or contemplated. But when we have that hearing, it is to come back and hear any comments regarding this particular budget.

but what we're turning into the county is the number, not necessarily the specific line-by-line things like we used to. It's just the number.

When can we change the COLA, then, if we choose not to change the COLA?

Because that sounds like that's... Any time between now and the final budget.

It just can't go up.

It just can't go up. Unless we shift it, I suppose, in theory, for another expense. But what we're sending to the county is what they're going to use to... SEND OUT A HEARING DATE, YOU KNOW. THE BOTTOM LINE DOLLAR. THE BOTTOM LINE DOLLAR.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO, YEAH, AND AGAIN, DURING THAT, AFTER THE HEARING ON THE 8TH, WE WILL LIKELY BRING FORWARD A DRAFT OF THE FINAL BUDGET. THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL TIME WHERE WE CAN NOT ONLY TAKE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT COMMISSIONERS CAN GIVE OR THE COMMISSION CAN GIVE FURTHER DIRECTION AT THAT MEETING. AND THEN BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 8TH AND OCTOBER 5TH, WHEN WE PROPOSE TO APPROVE THE FINAL BUDGET, WE COULD EITHER HAVE SPECIAL MEETINGS in between, or there is a meeting on September 21st, but if I understand it correctly, again, I think we'll be one or two commissioners shy on that meeting, so.

I'll be lost in the woods of Ontario.

Right, but again, just really pointing out that there are opportunities over the next two months to not only work in the background on options, but have more commission meetings where formal direction is given.

I just wanted to reiterate what Tyler was saying. I think when we say to put on pause, that COLA does not affect raises, because the raises are in there. And I think we need to be very clear to the public that we're doing 4% to 6% plus COLA. And I think people forget that. In addition to, so they're not getting a 4% to 6% raise, they're probably getting a 5% to 8% raise. And that's not COLA. So outside of the few that we're talking about who are at the top. And we can't be afraid to put it on pause. And I don't think COLA at 3% or even 2.5% is putting our people on pause for 2020. I don't think it's enough if we're really going to make an impact on all the other things that we need to do. So I am okay with leaving at 2.5%, but I don't think we should be doing it at 2.5%.

Well, we can continue our conversation on that in our upcoming meetings. All right, we have a motion and a second based off of, I think it was slide four, the five bullet points on there, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, and I just want to clarify what you're seeing on the screen right now reflects the dollar value of slide four. So slide four translates into these dollar amounts. So these are the dollar amounts that will be sent to the county and in which the budget hearing will be based on.

All right. Any further questions or comments?

Just last comment for the record. I know that this was really difficult, you know, to make these tough decisions. You know, like Commissioner Steadman mentioned about the health insurance inflation. I mean, that's one of the most important pieces of this whole equation is that, yeah, we're forecasting at five and a quarter, but it could come in at 18. You know, there are so many pressures on local government right now that this really, I think it's just a responsible thing to do for, not for us, but for the employees, for the taxpayers. I just wanted to make that comment.

All right. I'll ask one more time just for the heck of it. Any further questions? No.

We don't have a second.

People keep having comments when I ask, so. All right, hearing none, let's vote.

We don't have a second.

Oh, Commissioner Jorgensen's second.

Thank you.

Erickson. Yes. Stedman. Yes. Jorgensen. Yes. Zundel. Yes. Chertovich.

Yes. All right. Item six, city administrator's report.

Well, first and foremost, thank you. It was great discussion. You guys get to make all the hard decisions. Appreciate all the insight and the direction that we have been given. So with that, just a couple items for the administrator's report. Number one, Moody's. We got an updated Moody's rating today. They published a rating because we are in the process of issuing a refunding improvement bond that is tied to three projects we did over the last couple of years. So as we are issuing that debt to finance those projects, Moody's took a look at all of our financials and they published an updated rating. And we are, I'm happy to say, we are maintaining the AA3 rating. We've been maintaining that now since I think 2022, which is a very solid rating. It means that we are in good financial position. We have healthy debt. It is the same rating as our neighbor to the east, city of Fargo. But again, a bit of good news. You can find that report either online or if I'm not mistaken, I believe Rachel's already working on something to get out. Yep, we'll post it tomorrow. Perfect. So happy to share that good news. And then last update here, data centers. There was a directive from the commission to explore options with data centers and public engagement and staff have been working on that a little bit and It's you know, it's through the research. We've done we've learned Legislation for example has a committee There are other organizations that are working on this topic if you will it is certainly a hot topic nationwide so We did share our initial work with Mayor Jodovic and I think right now we're gonna propose that we just slow down the effort and wait and see how some of these other organizations, again, the legislative committee, how does that work materialize and what do we learn from that? Because prior to getting in front of the public, we wanna make sure we know exactly how to navigate the discussion. So right now, unless we're directed otherwise, continue to monitor, collect data, and then come back in front of the commission with, at some point in time, to really dive into the options for engaging with the public.

And one just additional comment on that is that Civic West is hosting an event, I believe, on September 17th at the fire station, specifically on that topic that will be moderated, and they have some, I believe they're bringing some people in from MIGHT BE MINN CODA AND OTHER ENTITIES TO PROVIDE SOME KNOWLEDGE AND TAKE RESONANT FEEDBACK.

ABSOLUTELY. SO CERTAINLY WE'LL SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS THAT EVENING. OTHERWISE, I WILL, STARTING TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD WHEN IT COMES TO THE 2025 AUDIT, BUT WE'VE MET WITH THE AUDIT TEAM. there were some setbacks in terms of just scheduling. So we were hopeful to have a preliminary audit in front of you in August. If it happens, it'll certainly not be, well, it's possible that it'll be the next meeting, but most likely it's gonna occur in September, where we will have the final 2025 audit. Now the audit, again, is where we will have a very clear picture of the city's financial position, the financial statements come out with that, And that's where then we will understand where our bottom line reserves are really moving or sitting. So looking forward to getting a draft out as soon as we get it, I will share it with the commission. But right now we're waiting for Ed Bailey to wrap up some things. With that, I will be happy to answer any other questions you have. All right, correspondence? I don't have anything new, Emily.

Any non-agenda items? Maybe a reminder of Night to Unite for tomorrow night. So there's some, a map somewhere of some community neighborhood gatherings. Hopefully people can get out and enjoy that. All right, otherwise is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.

And I'll second.

All right, we stand adjourned.